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 366,416 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 274Section 271(1)(c)Section 139(1)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271AAB

Issues it is cited on

section 274furnishing inaccurate particularsfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomenon-application of mindlevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 27opportunity of being heard

Judgments citing CIT v. Kaushalya

M/S. Dawsen Infotech (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 6, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 16/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravim/S. Dawsen Infotech (P.) Ltd., Dcit, Vs 2, Hare Street, Nicco House, 5Th Circle-6, P-7, Floor, Kolkata-700001. Chowringhee Square, Pan-Aabcd3435E Kolkata-700069. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Soumitra Choudhary, Adv. Respondent By Sh. C.J.Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2018

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. Kaus…

M/S. New Life Sonoscan Centre, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 24(2), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2008-09] M/S. New Life Sonoscan Centre, Ito, Ward-24(2), V Aayakar Bhawan, New Hospital Road, Akhan Bazar, S Khadina More, P.O- P.O.Chinsurah, Distt.-Hooghly. Chinsurah, Distt.- Hooghly, Pin- Pan-Aaefn8996N 712101. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Subash Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. C.J.Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02.11.2018 Order

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…

Giriraj Speciality Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 9 (3) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6127/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 6127/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ M/S. Giriraj Speciality P Ltd Ito-9(3)(4) 4, Rambha, Dadabhai Road Mumbai Vs. Vile Parle (W) Mumbai- 400056. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecg0215G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…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…

Mipco Seamless Rings (Guj) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5012/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5012/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) बिधम/ M/S. Mipco Seamless Rings Acit Circle 6(3) (Guj) Ltd. Mumbai Vs. 402-B, Poonam Chambers, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli Mumbai-400018. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm8331M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.07.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2006-07 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirm.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja NFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. ITA. No.5012/M/2015 A.Y. 2006-07 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…

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5749/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…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…

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5748/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…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…

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…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…

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5746/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…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…

Manju P. Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5745/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…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…

Dheerajkumar C. Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5744/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…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…

Paras Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5742/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…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…

Paras Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5741/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…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…

Paras Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5740/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…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…

Paras Porwal, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5739/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…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…

Ritesh P. Burad, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3446/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Ritesh P. Burad Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of 17B, Prena Building Income Tax, Circle-2 Swagatam Housing Complex Thane Jesal Park, Bhayander(E), Thane Pan/Gir No.Adgpb7399N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d principle laid in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) still holds good in spite of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v/s Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom), observed that notice issued under section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be made aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. The Court observed, vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity as he is unaware of the exact charg…

Shri Yashvardhan Mohta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 44, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1676/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Yashvardhan Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-44, Kolkata. [Pan: Afapm 0724 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
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…

Vinay Kumar Goenka, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 131/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

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

…1 Vinay Kumar Goenka, AY 2006-07 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/and "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A. No. 131/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Vinay Kumar Goenka Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AEGPG7724R) Central Circle-2, Kolkata Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 09.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement 12.10.2018 For the Appellant Smt. Shikha Agarwal, ACA For the Respondent Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.…

Ykm Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2174/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(2)

…on 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. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya reported in 216 ITR 660 the Ld. DR 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 Act. It was accordingly held that the penalty orders passed by the ITO for assessment years 1968-69 to 1969-70 were perfectly valid a…

ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Raghunandan Mody, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1611/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.1611/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata -Vs.- Shri Radhunandan Mody [Pan :Aexpm 8474 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr For The Appellant For The Respondent : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018. Order Per Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Surana, AR
Section 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 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. Kaus…

Sh. Swami Sharan Garg, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 4549/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 4Section 68

…document which is based on assessment order; that the notice has been issued in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and relied upon the cases of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT – (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya – (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bombay), Trimurti Engineering Works – 25 taxmann.com 363, Hybrid Rice International Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – ITA No.285/Del/2007, Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. DCIT - (2017) 166 ITD 113 (Mumbai), DCIT vs. Shahrukh Khan – (2018) 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai-Trib.), Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT – ITA Nos.3830 & 3833/Mum/2009. 9.…