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.

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 660)

Shri Sanjay Mittra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5206/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Sanjay Mittra, Dcit, Central Circle- 26, G-25, Green Park, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…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. 12. 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 a…

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Haresh S. Jhaveri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2561/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blea.C.I.T Circle – 17(1) V. Shri Haresh S Jhaveri Room No. 135, 1St Floor Ps-6/7, Rotunda Building, 2Nd Floor, B.S. Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Dalal Street, Mumbai – 400 023 Pan: Aabpj 8053 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. P. Daniel Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(c)

…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…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Laxmichand D. Rohira, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1178/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1178 To 1184/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. Co. Nos. 250 To 256/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. Nos.1183, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181 1182 & 1184/M/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07& 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adnpr6420M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)

Section 132

…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 Shri Dhanvinder Bindra 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 o…

Sri Jayanta Saha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 25, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 106/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

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 271(1)(c)

…1 Jayanta Saha., AY 2010-11 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” 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. 106/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Jayanta Saha Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AKKPS1951N) Circle-25, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 09.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement 19.09.2018 For the Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Assessee/Cross Objector Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri…

Smt. Aparna Biswas, North 24 Parganas vs. ITO, Ward - 49(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 991/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

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

…Smt. Aparna Biswas, AY 2011-12 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” 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. Nos. 990 & 991/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Aparna Biswas Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-49(1), Kolkata. (PAN: AFRPB4221Q) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 10.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement 07.09.2018 For the Appellant Shri Sunil Surana, FCA For the Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM Both…

Smt. Aparna Biswas, North 24 Parganas vs. ITO, Ward - 49(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 990/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

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

…Smt. Aparna Biswas, AY 2011-12 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” 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. Nos. 990 & 991/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Aparna Biswas Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-49(1), Kolkata. (PAN: AFRPB4221Q) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 10.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement 07.09.2018 For the Appellant Shri Sunil Surana, FCA For the Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM Both…

Rina Das, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2392/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Vs Rina Das, Ito, C/O-Subash Agarwal & Associates, Ward-2(2), Sidha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, 2Nd Siliguri, Aayakar Floor, Suite-213, Kolkata-700069. Bhawan, Paribahan Pan-Agmpd0221C Nagar, Matigara, Siliguri, Pin-734010. (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…ration Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA [Assessment Year: 2011-12] 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…

Versatile Wires Limted, Hooghly vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Kolkata

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

ITA 940/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Kumar, ld.Sr.DR

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

…oration Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 3 Versatile Wires Limited 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…

ITO, Ward - 13(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ambey Retailers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2104/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Income Tax Officer V/S. M/S Ambey Retailers Pvt. Ward-13(1), 9Th Ltd. 29B, Rabidra Sarani, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-73 Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Aayakar [Pan No.Aahca 8700 F] Bhawan (Poorva), Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri R. Chowdhury, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-08-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 03.07.2017, Passed In Case No.472/Cit(A)-5/W-15(1)/15-16, Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Deleting Imposing Penalty Of ₹50,21,837/- Involving Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. We Have Heard Learned Departmental Representative Arguing In Favour The Above Impugned Penalty. Case File Perused. It Emerges First Of All That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On The Issue Reads As Under:- “1. By Way Of Additional Ground The Objection Raised Is That The Ao Failed To Strike Off The Irrelevant Portion In The Notice Initiating Penalty U/S 271(1)(C)/ Section 274. Relying On The Decision Of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory & Others [2013] 359 Itr

Section 142Section 142(1)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…

J. K. Builders, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 47(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1692/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1692/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2010-11 J.K. Builders -Vs- Ito, Ward-47(2), Kolkata. [Pan: Aagfj 1596 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri I. Jamir, Addl. CIT

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…

Harvinder Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-33(2), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1867/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Godara

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. ITA No.1866-67/Kol/2016 A.Ys…

Harvinder Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-33(2), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1866/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Godara

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. ITA No.1866-67/Kol/2016 A.Ys…

Sujoy Deb, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 63(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2050/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sujoy Deb -Vs- Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata. [Pan: Adrpd 6358 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Dutta, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT

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…