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 366,339 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.Robust Transportation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3195/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Meena
Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…A No.3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 dated 21.03.2017 2. Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs DCIT,84 Taxmann.com 51 3. Mahesh M Gandhi vs ACIT.ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.02.2017 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya1 &Ors. 4. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom). 12 M/s. Robust Transportation Private Limited 5. Hon'ble Bombay HighCourt(Nagpur Bench) in the case of M/s. Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. CIT Dt.22-08-2017. 6. Hon'ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) 13. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) referred to the extract of the decision of the ITA…

M/S. Zenith Life Style Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT(A)-3, Kolkata

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

ITA 1928/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Varsha Jalan,, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Mukherjee, Addl.CIT, ld.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…

M/S. Dadheech Furniture Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1923/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari,FCA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Mukherjee, Addl.CIT, ld.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…

Karl Pestonji Kerawalla, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7152/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blekarl Pestonji Kerawalla V. I.T.O. – 11(2)(4) Kerawalla Chamber (4Th Floor) Aayakar Bhavan, 25, P.J. Ramchandani Marg., M.K. Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 039 Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Abiram Kartikeyan
Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…al D. Shah (supra) and the Coordinate Bench analyzing various case laws on the issue including the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Samson Perinchery [ITA.No. 953, 1097, 1154 & 1226 of 2014], CIT v. Smt Kaushalya & ors. [216 ITR 660], M/s.Maharaj Garage & Co. v. CIT [Income Tax Reference No. 21 of 2008] and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [210 CTR 228] held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer is bad in law since no specific charge was mentioned for which the penalty is imposed, observing as und…

Sri Supratik Banerjee, Birbhum vs. ACIT, Circle - 3, Suri, Birbhum

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

ITA 650/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Cit-A The Notice Dt. 29-12-2009 Issued By The Ao [Acit, Cir-3, Suri] U/Sec 274 R.W.S 271(1) ( C) Of The Act Is Defective For Not Mentioning The Specific Charge & Placed Reliance On The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ssa’S Emerald Meadows. The Cit-A Without Considering The Same Confirmed The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S. 271(1) ( C ) Of The Act By Placing Reliance On The Decisions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Cases Of Mak Data (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18389 Of 2013) & Dharmendra Textiles Reported In (2008) 306 Itr 277(Sc).

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl.CIT, ld.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 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…

Sayed Ahmed Abbas Naqvi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2230/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

…ound with regard to the legal issues urged by the assessee. He submitted that the non striking of inapplicable portion in the penalty notice will not vitiate the penalty proceedings as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt Kaushalya and Others (216 ITR 660). He further submitted that the co ordinate bench of Tribunal has held in the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (ITA No.6617/Mum/2014 dated 02/05/2017) that the provisions of sec.292B shall apply to the non striking of inapplicable portion. 6. In the rejoinder, the Ld A.R submitted that the decision rendered in the case of Earthm…

Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd, Jhansi vs. DCIT -2(3)(1), Jhansi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 193/AGR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…wherein the DR vide Para-7, submitted before the Bench that in the assessment order the AO has clerly specified that penalty is initiated for concealment of income and placing reliance upon the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs Kaushlaya Devi’ 216 ITR 660, submitted that mere mistake in the language used or mere non-striking off the inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the Notice. 28. The argument tendered by the Revenue was not accepted by the ITAT who in Para-12 after due discussion of the Judgment delivered in the case of ‘CIT Vs Kaushlaya Devi’ (supra) has held that a combined readi…

Shree Tirupati Geenfield Developers, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 3, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Shree Tirupati Greenfield Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Developers, Tax, Central Circle – 3, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Devanchand Hansraj Compound, Kolshet Road Road No.16Z, Wagle Estate Dhokali, Thane (W)-400607 Thane (W) Pan/Gir No. Abdfs2863H Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 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 14 Shree Tirupati Greenfield Developers, Thane 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…

Tanna Financial Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 206/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 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 17 I.T.A. No. 206/Mum/2011 M/s Tanna Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 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 ass…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ananya Wood Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1444/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Ananya Wood Pvt. Ltd., AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/and "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 1443 & 1444/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Ananya Wood Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata. (PAN: AAFCA5351G) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 01.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement 03.08.2018 For the Appellant Shri A. K. Tiwari, CIT, DR For the Respondent Shri…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ananya Wood Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1443/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Ananya Wood Pvt. Ltd., AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/and "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 1443 & 1444/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Ananya Wood Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata. (PAN: AAFCA5351G) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 01.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement 03.08.2018 For the Appellant Shri A. K. Tiwari, CIT, DR For the Respondent Shri…

Delux Polymers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

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

ITA 165/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.165/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ M/S. Delux Polymers Pvt. Dcit, Central Circle-33 Ltd. 11/12 Raghuvanshi Mill (Passing The Original Order) Vs. Compound, Lower Parel, Dy. Cit (C.C.5(3) Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd4132B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sumit Lalchandani & Salil Kapoor Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.09.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Upheld.

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lalchandani & SalilFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27l

…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…

Tapan Kumar Saha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 23(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1156/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2011-12

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

…m 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. ITA No.1156/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 Tapan Kr. Saha Vs. ITO Wd-23(2), Kol. Page 3 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…

Sri Krishna Kumar Mundhra, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 45, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1001/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Vs Acit, Sh. Krishna Kumar Mundhra, Subhash Agarwal & Associates, Circle-45, Siddha Gibson, 1 Gibson Lane, 2Nd Kolkata Floor, Suite-213, Kolkata-700069. Pan-Adqpm9715P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Somdutta Somaddar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2018

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 [Assessment Year: 2011-12] 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…

Shri Laxmi Kant Todi, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1509/KOL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: The Cit-A The Notice Dt. 30-06-2014 Issued By The Ao U/Sec 274 Of The Act Is Defective For Not Mentioning The Specific Charge & Placed Reliance On The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ssa’S Emerald Meadows. The Cit-A Without Considering The Same Confirmed The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S. 271(1) ( C ) Of The Act By Placing Reliance On The Decisions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Cases Of Mak Data (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18389 Of 2013) & Dharmendra Textiles Reported In (2008) 306 Itr 277(Sc).

For Appellant: Ms. Pinki Shaw, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.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 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…

Sun Biotechnology Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-7(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1094/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, J.M & Dr. A. L. Saini, A.M आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1094/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sun Biotechnology Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri S. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
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…

DCIT, Cir-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Vivada Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1391/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.1391/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-10(2), Kolkata -Vs.- M/S. Vivada Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [Pan : Aaacv 8688 C ] (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit For The Appellant For The Respondent : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2018. Order Per Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ankit Jalan, Ld. AR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 48Section 50C

…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…

Sri Sujoy Kanti Pal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 63(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 786/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 143(3)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…

Rajgaria Timber Privtate Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-2(2)/Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 926/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2008-09

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri A.Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…g 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 4 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…

Shri Praveen Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 46(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 297/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 143(3)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…