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

DCIT, Circle-1, Siliguri vs. M/S Prakash Distillery & Chemicals(P) Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, both the appeal of revenue and the cross objection of assessee are dismissed

ITA 1717/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)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…

Jayanta Dasgupta, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 23(3), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

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

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” 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. 763/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Jayanta Dasgupta Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-23(3), Hooghly. (PAN: ACXPD6808N) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 27.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement 29.06.2018 For the Appellant Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal preferred by th…

Abdul Hamid Mustafa Hussain Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-22(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3008/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3008/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Shri Abdul Hamid Abdul Ito, Ward 22(1)(1), Mustafa Hussain Shaikh Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai. Vs. Shop No.5, Plot No.313, 15Pt, Near Geesee Apt, Vidyanagari, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400098. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Amdps5078F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 02.12.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.7,50,000/- Has Been Order To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash G. JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. AR)
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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Phi Seeds (P) Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 4366/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd versus CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 ( Madras). The Ld. DR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt Kaushlya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) and decision of the Tribunal Mumbai bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Shah Rukh Khan (2018) 93 taxmann.com 320. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. In the instant case the main issue in dispute involved around Explanation-1 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. For ready reference, said explanation…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6645/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2006-07
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd versus CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 ( Madras). The Ld. DR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt Kaushlya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) and decision of the Tribunal Mumbai bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Shah Rukh Khan (2018) 93 taxmann.com 320. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. In the instant case the main issue in dispute involved around Explanation-1 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. For ready reference, said explanation…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Phi Seeds Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6622/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2004-05
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd versus CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 ( Madras). The Ld. DR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt Kaushlya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) and decision of the Tribunal Mumbai bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Shah Rukh Khan (2018) 93 taxmann.com 320. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. In the instant case the main issue in dispute involved around Explanation-1 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. For ready reference, said explanation…

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 53/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Tribunal On 27-11-2017 In The Case Of Jeetmal Choraria In Ita No. 956/Kol/2016 For The A.Y 2010-11 May Be Adopted In This Case & Relied On The Order Of The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Surana, FCA, ld.AR
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 2 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. K…

M/S/ Subarna Rice Mill, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Burdwan

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 485/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

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

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

…1 M/s. Subarna Rice Mill, AY- 2010-11 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” 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. 485/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Subarna Rice Mill Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-2(3), Burdwan (PAN: ABKFS2121B) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 11.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement 14.06.2018 For the Appellant Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM The appeal…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Shailja Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 275/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

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

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 Shailja Fashions Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2013-14 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” 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. 275/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Shailja Fashions Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata. (PAN: AAECS4181M) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 21.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement 14.06.2018 For the Appellant Shri G. Hangshing, CIT, DR For the Respondent Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Gangour Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 273/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2018AY 2013-14

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

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 Gangour tie-up Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2013-14 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” 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. 273/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Gangour Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata. (PAN: AACCG3488M) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 22.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement 25.05.2018 For the Appellant Shri G. Hangshing, CIT, DR For the Respondent S/Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA & Amit Agarwal,…

ACIT, Circle-2(3), Kolkata vs. Late Baijnath Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of revenue as well as the Cross objection of assessee is dismissed

ITA 476/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 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 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

…1 ITA No.476/Kol/2017 & CO No.18/Kol/ 2017 Late Baijnath Agarwal, AY- 2011-12 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” 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. 476/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Late Baijnath Agarwal, L/H Shri Kunj Central circle-2(3), Kolkata. Bihari Agarwal (PAN: ACTPA4174A) Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 18/Kol/2017 In I.T.A. No. 476/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Late Baijnath Agarwa…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.5767/Mum/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Shah Rukh Khan IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM AND SHRI N.K.PRADHAN, AM Dy. Commissoner of Income-tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN No. AAHPK3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) : अऩीराथी की ओय…

Smt. Sarla Devi, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Aligarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 70/AGR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…CIT vs. Dr. Prakash Kanhaiyalal Kankariya”, ITA (n) No.1645/Pune/2013. “Madanlal Kishorilal vs. CIT”, 197CTR (All) 144. (o) “Muninaga Reddy” (supra). (p) “Jaysons Infrastructure India P. Ltd. vs. ITO”, ITA No. (q) 997/Bang/2015. “CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi”, 216 ITR 660 (Bom). (r) 10. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The issue is as to whether, as contended by the assessee, issuance of a notice under section 274 of the Act is a prerequisite sine qua non for the levy of concealment penalty u/s 271(1)(c), or whether it is not so, the initiation of penalty proceedings, as contained…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Dhaval D Shah, Mumbai

ITA 1337/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Dhaval D. Shah Income, Central Smag House, 1St Floor, Vs. Circle2(3), Old Cgo Sarojini Road Ext., Vile Building, 8Th Floor, M.K. Parle (W) Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400010 Pan No. Aahps2691E Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 08/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dhaval D. Shah Dy. Commissioner Of Smag House, 1St Floor, Income, Central Vs. Sarojini Road Ext., Vile Circle2(3), Old Cgo Parle (W) Building, 8Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400010 Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps2691E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. M.P. Lohia, Ar Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27lSection 57

…SA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) and CIT v. Samson Perinchery (ITA No. 1154/2014) dated 05.01.2017 (Bom), the issue of such notice is bad in law. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the decision in CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom); M/s Maharaj Garage & Co. v. CIT (Income Tax Reference No. 21 of 2008) Order dated 22.08.2017 of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court; Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. ACIT Shri Dhaval D. Shah 6 ITA No. 1337/Mum/2016 & CO No. 08/Mum/2018 [W.P.(C) 10870/2017 and C.M. No. 44503/2017] dated 02.02.2018 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court ; the order of the ITAT…

M/S Hallmark Construction, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD.3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2141/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2018AY 2007-08

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

…1 Hallmark Construction, AY- 2007-08 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” 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. 2141/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Hallmark Construction Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-3(3), Kolkata (PAN: AAACH7738M) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 15.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement 04.05.2018 For the Appellant Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Advocate & Mrs. Saswati Mitra (Dutta) For the Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.…

Clarion Logistics India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4942/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4942/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Clarion Logistics India The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. F-4, 4Th Floor, Ward 8(1)(2), Mumbai Vs. Pinnacle Business Park, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc3479N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Dinkle Hariya (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mittal (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.07.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Upheld.

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)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…

N. Jamnadas & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 4055/MUM/2016[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2018AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 N. Jamnadas & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Of 16, Bank Street, Fort, Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs. Mumbai-400001. 6(4), Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaccfn8427G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Y.P. Trivedi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/04/2018

For Appellant: Dr. Y.P. Trivedi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37

…SA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) and CIT v. Samson Perinchery (ITA No. 1154/2014) dated 05.01.2017 (Bom), the issue of such notice is bad in law. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the decision in CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya & Ors. (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom), M/s Maharaj Garage & Co. v. CIT (Income Tax Reference No. 21 of 2008) order dated 22.08.2017 of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the order of the ITAT in the case of the appellant’s sister concern M/s J.M. Baxi & Co. (supra). The Ld. thus supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the r…

Basant Kumar Hamirbasia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 703/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

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

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

…1 Basant Kumar Hamirbasia, AY- 2013-14 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” 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. 703/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Basant Kumar Hamirbasia Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-44(1), Kolkata (PAN: AAPPH7547G) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 18.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement 26.04.2018 For the Appellant Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR For the Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM The…

Associated Trading, Hooghly vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Dgp, Burdwan

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 778/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

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

…1 Associated Trading, 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. 778/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Associated Trading Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-1(1), (PAN: AAJFA7789Q) Durgapur Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 15.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement 26.04.2018 For the Appellant Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM The appeal file…

Ashok Narayanan, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 6464/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhashok Narayanan Dcit 8(2) C/O Orion Commodities & 209, Aayakar Bhavan, Services Pvt. Ltd., B-401, Mumbai. Kotia Nariman Link Road, Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400053 Pan: Aaapn8540N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh, J.M. 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ppeal about striking off inappropriate portion of the notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. To strengthening its submission, the reliance is made on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalya (2005) 216 ITR 660(Bom) and decisions of Tribunal in case of Ms. Laudres Austin vs. ITO in ITA No. 1683/Mum/2009 dated 3 ITA No.6464/M/14- Ashok Narayanan. 28.09.2017 and Sansui Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 1403/Mum/2015 dated 30.11.2017. 5. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We h…