How many judgments cite CIT v. Kaushalya?

508 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kaushalya (216 ITR 660), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kaushalya come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 274, Section 271(1)(c), Section 139(1), Section 132, Section 143(1), Section 143(3).

CIT v. Kaushalya

216 ITR 660High Court1995#129 most cited

What is CIT v. Kaushalya authority for?

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

508

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kaushalya · 216 ITR 660 · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · penalty notice validity · non-striking off irrelevant portion · application of mind · prejudice to assessee · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · Section 274

Sections most often in play

Section 274 Section 271(1)(c)Section 139(1)Section 132 Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 271AAB

Issues it is cited on

section 274 furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of income non-application of mind levy of penalty section 271(1)section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 opportunity of being heard

Judgments citing CIT v. Kaushalya

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. SRI MAHESWARY GRANITES (P) LTD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3054/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3054/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sri Maheswary Granites (P) Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Central Circle – 2, Old No.115, New No.84, Coimbatore Bashyakarlu Road West, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore Pan: Aafcs 9118K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

For Appellant: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा"य" एवं "ी इंटूर" रामा राव, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 3054/CHNY/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner of Sri Maheswary Granites (P) Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Central Circle – 2, Old No.115, New No.84, Coimbatore Bashyakarlu Road West, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore PAN: AAFCS 9118K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT ""यथ" क" ओ…

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2741/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by the other Division Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 11. As noted earlier, we find that the impugned penalty notice dated 31.03.2015 didn’t explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee was being proceeded against for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice is found to be defective/invalid, and theref…

EVEREST KANTO CYLINDER LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5790/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Prabhash Shankareverest Kanto Cylinder V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr.DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Everest Kanto Cylinder v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Ltd. बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(4), 204,Raheja Centre, Free World Trade Centre 1, Cuffe Press Journal Marg, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Nariman Point, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACE0836F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Shekhar Gupta,AR Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr.DR) Date of Hearing 12.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.12.2…

JOSEPH ABRAHAM PETER JOSEPH,MADURAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2722/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.M. Muriga Boopathy, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 271(1)(c)

…upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 5. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 27.12.2019 didn’t explicitly convey to the assessee, the specific fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice is found to be defective/invalid, and therefore, it is held to…

M.LAKHAMSI& CO. ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4304/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: \nMr. Ketan Vajani, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

…ey do\nnot represent different concepts. Had they not been so, the Parliament would\nnot have used the different terminologies.\"\n5.1 The ld. DR made an argument based on the decision of the\nhon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Others,\n216 ITR 660 (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking\noff of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition\nof penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. A combined reading of the decision\nrendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B\nKaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon'ble\nSupreme Cour…

MUKON CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1152/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nShri Siddharth Srivashtav,ARFor Respondent: \nShri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

…d\nnot represent different concepts. Had they not been so, the Parliament would\nnot have used the different terminologies.\"\n5.1 The ld. CIT-DR made an argument based on the decision of\nthe hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya &\nOthers, 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that\nnon-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate\nthe imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. A combined reading of\nthe decision rendered by hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.\nB Kaushalya and the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\ncase of Di…

MR. ARUMUGASAMY VASANTHA VIKAS,VIRDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, CORP. WARD-4, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Stay

ITA 2108/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Rama Krishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2107 & 2108/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 & Stay Petition Nos.76 & 77/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 v. Mr. Arumugasamy Vasantha Vikas, The ITO, 43-A, Kaliamman Kovil Street, Corporate Ward-4, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar-626 123. Madurai-625 002. [PAN:ADGPV 6980 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""य…

MR. ARUMUGASAMY VASANTHA VIKAS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, CORP. WARD-4. ,MADURAI, MUDRAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and Stay

ITA 2107/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Rama Krishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, IRS

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

INCOME-TAX OFFICER-8(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VIBGYOR TEXOTECH LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4705/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

…come Tax, Central Circle 1, Belgaum\n[2021] 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bombay) held that:\n\nAs aptly pointed out by the referring Division Bench, before this\nCourt there are two sets of cases. One set of cases is led by CIT v.\nSmt. Kaushalya [1994] 75 Тахтап 549/216 ITR 660 (Bombay) a\ndecision earliest in point of time. The other set does not have a\nlead case; they all have been cryptic but stand persuaded by\nManjunatha (supra). For that reason, the Karnataka High Court's\ndecision has been discussed in detail. Nevertheless, the referring\nDivision Bench has found on one precedential plank these cases:\n(1) CIT v…

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

ITA 3297/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…icitly state \"under-\nreporting\" is a minor technical lapse. The 50% penalty, combined with\nthe assessment of unaccounted income from the search, aligns with\nSection 270A(7), rendering the notice valid.\n•\nThe Bombay High Court in CIT v. Kaushalya [1995] 216 ITR 660 held\nthat technical defects do not vitiate notices when the intent is clear.\n•\nd. No Prejudice Caused to the Assessee\n•\nThe assessee was fully aware of the penalty's basis: unaccounted\ncapitation fees discovered during the 07.11.2017 search and assessed\nfor A.Υ. 2018-19.\n•\nThe notice, read with the assessment order and penalty order,\npr…

ST. JOSHEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

ITA 3296/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. (Pan: Aamts 3888 G) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

…or explicitly state "under- reporting" is a minor technical lapse. The 50% penalty, combined with the assessment of unaccounted income from the search, aligns with Section 270A(7), rendering the notice valid. • The Bombay High Court in CIT v. Kaushalya [1995] 216 ITR 660 held that technical defects do not vitiate notices when the intent is clear. d. No Prejudice Caused to the Assessee • The assessee was fully aware of the penalty's basis: unaccounted capitation fees discovered during the 07.11.2017 search and assessed for A.Y. 2018-19. • The notice, read with the assessment order and penalty order, provided suffi…

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3295/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

ST. JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

ITA 3294/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aamts 3888 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

ST.JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3293/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

PRATAP NAGNAJI RAJGOR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(3) (1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 865/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…t Pr. CIT v. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26-11-2019] and other cases have adopted an approach more in consonance with the statutory scheme. That means it must be held that CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 75 Taxman 549/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) does not lay down the correct proposition of law." Question No. 2: Has Kaushalya failed to discuss the aspect of 'prejudice'? 184. Indeed, Smt. Kaushalya case (supra) did discuss the aspect of prejudice. As we have already noted, Kaushalya noted that the assessment orders already contained the reasons why penalty should be initiated. So, t…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 962/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

For Appellant: \nShri Rajiv Khandelwal (VirtuallyFor Respondent: \nDr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND\nSHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.962/Mum/2024\n(Assessment Year: 2003-04)\nDCIT, Central Circle-7(1), vs TRIUMPH SECURITIES LTD,\nMumbai, 121, Radha Bhavan, 1ST Floor,\nRoom No.676B, 6th Floor, Nagindas, Master Road, Fort,\nAayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 023\nMumbai-400 020\nPAN: AABCT1510A\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nAssessee by :\nShri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtually\nappeared)\nRespondent by :\nDr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel\nDate of hearing\n:\n16/01/2025\nDate of pro…

VITAL INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-III(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2332/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.G. Srikanth, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…er in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by another Division Bench in the case of M/s.Vital Industries India Pvt. Ltd. :: 4 :: CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) doesn’t lay down the correct proposition of law. 6. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice for AY dated 26.12.2016 didn’t explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice is found to be defective/invalid, and therefore, it is he…

C.VIJAYALAKSHMI,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT, CC-2, MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1599/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Imposing Of Penalty Was Invalid, Because, It Didn'T Specify The Exact Fault On Which The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied & Drew Our Attention To Show Cause Notice Issued By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) R.W.S.274 Of The Act Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2012-13, Which We Perused & Will Adjudicate This Legal Issue. 3. As Discussed, The Assessee Has Assailed The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, Which Penalty Was Imposed By Ao According To Assessee Without Having Jurisdiction. According To Assessee, The Ld.Cit(A) While Passing The Impugned Order Has Not Considered The Fact That The Notice Issued By The Ao Before Imposition Of The Penalty Didn'T Specify The Exact Fault On Which The Penalty Is Proposed To Be Levied I.E. Whether The Assessee Had Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Or Have Concealed The Income & Hence Notice Is Bad In Law, Which Vitiates Levy Of Penalty. 4. In Respect Of The Aforesaid Legal Issue, First Of All We Have Perused The Show Cause Notice (Scn) Issued By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 Of The Act Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2012-13 By Virtue Of Which The Ao Gave Notice To The Assessee 'As To Why The Penalty Should Not Be Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Or Not? On Perusal Of Of The The Impugned Scn Dated :: 3 ::

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ourt upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 5. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 31.12.2016 didn't explicitly convey to the assessee, the specific fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice is found to be defective/invalid, and therefore, it is held to be…

SRI JEYAPRABHA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MADURAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 794/CHNY/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.794/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers – The Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle-2, 285/91 B, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai. Madurai-625 001. [Pan: Aarcs 2844 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…t upheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. 5. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 31.12.2016 didn’t explicitly convey to the assessee the specific fault/charge the assessee was being proceeded against for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice is found to be defective/invalid, and therefore it is h…

APLNAGAPPA CHETTIAR,MADURAI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-3,, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.748/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri A.Pl.Nagappa Chettiar, The Acit, Plot No.353, Anna Nagar, Circle-3, Madurai-625 020. Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)

…pheld the view of the division bench order in the case of PCIT Vs. Goa Dourado Promotions (P.) Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.18 of 2019, dated 26.11.2019) and held that the contrary view taken by an another division bench in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) does not lay down the correct proposition of law. Shri A.PL.Nagappa Chettiar :: 4 :: 5. As noted earlier, we find that the penalty notice dated 28.12.2004 didn’t explicitly convey to the assessee, the specific fault/charge the assessee is being proceeded for levy of penalty. Resultantly, the show cause notice is found to be defective/in…

Showing 1–20 of 508 · Page 1 of 26

...