How many judgments cite CIT v. Kaushalya?

511 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#131 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.

511

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 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

Elenjickamalil V. Thomas, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2647/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…tice dated 28.12.2011 issued by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the 1961 Act, keeping in view factual matrix of the case as discussed above. In our considered view decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Kaushalaya (1995)216 ITR 660(Bom.) is relevant. Principles of natural justice were adhered to by Revenue. In any case, if there was any defect in notice dated 28.12.2011 issued by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the 1961 Act, that is a curable defect within meaning of Section 292B and 29BB of the 1961 Act. Thus, keeping in view factual matrix of the ground, thi…

Laxman Raghunath Ingale, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2915/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Abhay ShashtriFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ct, in such scenario, the imposition of penalty shall be void ab-initio. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Kaushalya And Others reported as 216 ITR 660. Placing reliance on this decision, the Ld. DR contended that when the assessment order and the penalty order clearly states that penalty has been levied for concealment of income, the non-striking of irrelevant portion of the limb in the notice u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 is not fatal, since the assessee knows the charge for which penalty u/s.271(1…

Binaguri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2160/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Binaguri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Smt. Puja Somani, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR

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

…ving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not Binaguri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year: 2013-14 furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down in the decision has been given in the written…

Nathmal Saraf Charity Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1)(Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2120/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Nathmal Saraf Charity Trust Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(Exemption), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Harshbardhan Bhardwaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR

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

…ving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not Nathmal Saraf Charity Trust Assessment Year: 2013-14 furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down in the decision has been given in the written…

Horizon Country Wide Logistics Ltd(Now Succeeded on Amalgamation by Skil Infrastructure Limited ), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 7068/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kamar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7068/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Horizon Country Wide बिधम/ Dcit, Cc-6(3) 19Th Floor, Air India, M.K. Logistics Ltd. (Now Vs. Succeeded On Amalgamation Road, Mumbai-400020. By Skill Infrastructure Ltd.) Skil House, 209 Bank Street Cross Lane, Fort Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn5412E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.09.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirmed. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 2. Ita. No7068/M/2017 A.Y. 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the ld. CIT-DR made an argument based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Others, 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Dav…

Manabendra Nath Das, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 22(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1086/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139(4)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 Manabendra Nath Das, AY. 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 1086/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Manabendra Nath Das Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-22(3), Kolkata (PAN: ACVPD2902M) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 24.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 10.04.2019 For the Appellant Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate For the Assessee Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal preferred…

M/S. Ochoa Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4967/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Manu Monga, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

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

…Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), in which SLP has also been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case cited as Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) and also relied upon the judgment of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya – 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) & Trimurti Engineering Works vs. ITO – (2012) 138 ITD 189 (Del.). Ld. DR also filed written submission which are made part of the record. 11. In order to proceed further, we would like to peruse the notice issued by AO u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act to initiate the penalty proceedings which is extracted as under for re…

Emdee Digitronics (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 506/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

…ving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down in the decision has been given in the written note filed before us. 9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kau…

Kakoli Chatterjee, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1453/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Sh. A.L.Sainikakoli Chatterjee, Ito, Vs Domjur, Howrah-711405. Ward-46(3), Pan-Adnpc5051D Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Pinki Shaw, Aca Respondent By Shankar Halder, Sr.Dr Jcit Date Of Hearing 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 29.03.2019

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

…ving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down in the decision has been given in the written note filed before us. 9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kau…

Tum Nath Shaw, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Circle - 2, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2048/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Tum Nath Shaw Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Burdwan

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

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

…ving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not Tum Nath Shaw Assessment Year: 2005-06 furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down in the decision has been given in the written note filed be…

Moving Picture Company India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2896/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sood, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR

Section 143Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…18) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), in which SLP has also been 10 ITA No.2896/Del./2015 dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case cited as Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) and also relied upon the judgment of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya – 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) & Trimurti Engineering Works vs. ITO – (2012) 138 ITD 189 (Del.). 16. Hon’ble Madras High Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra) upheld the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the penalty levied on the basis of notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act in which specific charge was not pointed out by r…

Neha Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-18(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the 17

ITA 5656/DEL/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. R.K Panda

Section 148Section 254Section 271Section 274Section 68

…has considered the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565. 8. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya reported in 216 ITR 660 he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that mere mistake in language used or mere non-striking off of inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice u/s 274 of the I.T. Act. It was accordingly held that the penalty orders passed by the ITO for assessment years 1968-69 to 1969-70 were perfectly valid and…

Neha Toka Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-18(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the 17

ITA 5655/DEL/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. R.K Panda

Section 148Section 254Section 271Section 274Section 68

Shree Balaji Promoters and Builders, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3 (2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 234/PUN/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer and the same being confirmed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya reported as 216 ITR 660. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1) of the Act did not specify the exact limb/ charge for which penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is levied. The notice is vague in nature since it mentions both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnis…

M/S N N Jewellers, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

ITA 66/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 63 to 68/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2005-06 to 2010-11 cuke M/s N N Jewellers, I.T.O., Vs. 3261-3262, Majid Mansion, Ward 2(1), Nawab Ka Chouraha, Ghat Gate, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABFN 3331 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Anuradha (JCIT) lquo…

M/S N N Jewellers, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in

ITA 64/JPR/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)

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

Utpal Bose, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 33(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1471/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviutpal Bose, Ito, Amta Road, Howrah-711401. Vs Ward-33(2), Pan-Aeepb9411L Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Miraj D.Shah, Ar Respondent By Sh.Shankar Halder, Jcit Date Of Hearing 28.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2019

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

…ving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down in the decision has been given in the written note filed before us. 9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kau…

Nilesh Subhash Chopda, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2088/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar

Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ly, none striking of irrelevant clause in the notice issued u/s. 274 would not vitiate penalty proceedings. Our this view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Kaushalya & Ors. reported as 216 ITR 660. 8. The decisions on which reliance has been placed by the assessee are either rendered by the Tribunal or Hon’ble non-jurisdictional High Courts. Since, there is a direct decision by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court on the issue, the same has been respectfully followed. In so far as reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in t…

Lodhi Property Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1232/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), in which SLP has also been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case cited as Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) and also relied upon the judgment of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya – 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) & Trimurti Engineering Works vs. ITO – (2012) 138 ITD 189 (Del.). 14. Hon’ble Madras High Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra) upheld the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the penalty levied on the basis of notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act in which specific charge was not pointed out by r…

Subhash Kumar Agarwal, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(1), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 2659/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

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

…ving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA NO.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) MlS.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of ITA No.2658-59/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2014-15 Subhash Kr. Agarwal Vs ITO Wd-46(1), Kol. Page 4 the same was not furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down i…