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

Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf HUF, Pune vs. ITO WD 14(2)2, Mumbai

ITA 2063/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am Shivkumar Devidutt Saraf, Huf Ito, Ward-14(2)(2), बिधम/ 50, Chhotalal Bhavan, 418, 3Rd Floor, Earnest House, Kalbadevi Road, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaahs9816G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri. V.G Ginde and ShriramFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…e following judicial pronouncements : (i) Dhavan K. Jain Vs. ITO, Ward 16(3)(1) (ITA No. 996/Mum/2014) (Mum) (ii) Earthmoving Equipment Service Cooperation Vs. DCIT-22, Mumbai (ITA No. 6617/Mum/2014, dated 02.05.2017) (iii) CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya & Ors. (1995 216 ITR 660) (Bom) The Ld. D.R further adverting to the merits of the case relied on the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that in the backdrop of the facts of the case the A.O had rightly imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of the bogus gift transaction claimed by P a g e | 9 ITA No. 2063/Mum/2014 AY: 2004-05 Shivkumar Devidu…

Sri Bablu Sur, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 223/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

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

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

…1 Bablu Sur, AY- 2005-06 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” 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. 223/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Bablu Sur (PAN: ALIPS9730N) Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-44(1), Kolkata Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 26.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement 28.03.2018 For the Appellant Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM The appeal filed by the assesse…

Gupta Engineering Co., Kolkata vs. CIT(Appeals) -9, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1375/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Nitin Jagwayan, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharya,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…

Joshi Wadewale Shewalwadi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 99/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ated at length by us in the case of Kanhaiyalal D. Jain Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1201 to 1205/PN/2014, relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08, dated 30.11.2016. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom), we have held that where recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer while initiating penalty is clear and not ambiguous, then merely because one of the limbs has not been struck off the notice, does not make the proceedings invalid. In view of the same, we find no merit in the plea of assessee and the same is dismissed. 18. Now, co…

Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 96/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ated at length by us in the case of Kanhaiyalal D. Jain Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1201 to 1205/PN/2014, relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08, dated 30.11.2016. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom), we have held that where recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer while initiating penalty is clear and not ambiguous, then merely because one of the limbs has not been struck off the notice, does not make the proceedings invalid. In view of the same, we find no merit in the plea of assessee and the same is dismissed. 18. Now, co…

Mrs. Vasundhara Shailesh Joshi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 95/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ated at length by us in the case of Kanhaiyalal D. Jain Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1201 to 1205/PN/2014, relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08, dated 30.11.2016. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom), we have held that where recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer while initiating penalty is clear and not ambiguous, then merely because one of the limbs has not been struck off the notice, does not make the proceedings invalid. In view of the same, we find no merit in the plea of assessee and the same is dismissed. 18. Now, co…

Joshi Wadewale Hadapsar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 105/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ated at length by us in the case of Kanhaiyalal D. Jain Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1201 to 1205/PN/2014, relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08, dated 30.11.2016. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom), we have held that where recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer while initiating penalty is clear and not ambiguous, then merely because one of the limbs has not been struck off the notice, does not make the proceedings invalid. In view of the same, we find no merit in the plea of assessee and the same is dismissed. 18. Now, co…

Joshi Wadewale Prabhat Cinema, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 102/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ated at length by us in the case of Kanhaiyalal D. Jain Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1201 to 1205/PN/2014, relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08, dated 30.11.2016. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom), we have held that where recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer while initiating penalty is clear and not ambiguous, then merely because one of the limbs has not been struck off the notice, does not make the proceedings invalid. In view of the same, we find no merit in the plea of assessee and the same is dismissed. 18. Now, co…

Joshi Wadewale Shewalwadi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 100/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ated at length by us in the case of Kanhaiyalal D. Jain Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1201 to 1205/PN/2014, relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08, dated 30.11.2016. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom), we have held that where recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer while initiating penalty is clear and not ambiguous, then merely because one of the limbs has not been struck off the notice, does not make the proceedings invalid. In view of the same, we find no merit in the plea of assessee and the same is dismissed. 18. Now, co…

Sri Pradeep Singh Gurung, Siliguri vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 375/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumyajit Dasgupta, 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…

Quadeye Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1989/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.Gupta, ACA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, 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…

Sachin Manohar Deshmukh, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(2), Mumbai

ITA 3767/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Sachin Manohar Deshmukh Acit-10(2), बिधम/ Man Sneh Bungalow, P.K. Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Deshmukhwadi Complex New Marine Lines, Vs. Mulund, (W), Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai-400080 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpd1129L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Saparia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstance being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the Id. 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 (Born.) 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 Id. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Santa Milind Dav…

Smt. Shabari Paul, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1747/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

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

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

…1 Smt. Shabari Paul, AY- 2006-07 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. 1747/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Shabari Paul Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AENPP6652G) Central Circle-XXVII, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 16.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement 21.03.2018 For the Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent Shri A. K. Tiwari, CIT ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM The…

Sushil S. Jhunjhunwala (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 3001/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 3001 To 3007/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03 To 2008-09) Shushil S. Jhujhunwala (Huf) Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4) बिधम/ Flat No. 41/42, 4Th Floor, Mumbai Meghna Apt, S.V. Road, Vs. Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aajhs5267C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstance being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the Id. 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 (Born.) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevan t 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 Id. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Santa Milind Da…

Sh. Munish Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

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

ITA 255/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…ase. The Ld. DR contended that it cannot be said, therefore, that the assessee’s right for reasonable opportunity of being heard was prejudiced in any manner. The Ld. DR in this regard relied upon the following decisions: 1) CIT Vs. Smt.Kaushalya & Others 216 ITR 660 2) CIT Vs. Mithila Motors (1984) 149 ITR 751 (Pat) 3) Grass Farms & Resorts (P)Ltd. Vs. DCIT IT Appeal No.730 (jp) of 2011(ITAT, Jaipur Bench) 4) Airen Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 5) Labh Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Kaithal Date of orod 5.8.2016 6) Vasantbhai Haribhai Gajera Vs. DCIT 7) Trishul Enterprises Vs. ACIT ITA No.384 & 385/Mum/2014 (I.T.A.T., M…

Sh. Munish Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

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

ITA 254/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…ase. The Ld. DR contended that it cannot be said, therefore, that the assessee’s right for reasonable opportunity of being heard was prejudiced in any manner. The Ld. DR in this regard relied upon the following decisions: 1) CIT Vs. Smt.Kaushalya & Others 216 ITR 660 2) CIT Vs. Mithila Motors (1984) 149 ITR 751 (Pat) 3) Grass Farms & Resorts (P)Ltd. Vs. DCIT IT Appeal No.730 (jp) of 2011(ITAT, Jaipur Bench) 4) Airen Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 5) Labh Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Kaithal Date of orod 5.8.2016 6) Vasantbhai Haribhai Gajera Vs. DCIT 7) Trishul Enterprises Vs. ACIT ITA No.384 & 385/Mum/2014 (I.T.A.T., M…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7249/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstance being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the Id. 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 (Born.) 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 Id. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Santa Milind Dav…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7248/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstance being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the Id. 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 (Born.) 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 Id. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Santa Milind Dav…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7247/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstance being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the Id. 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 (Born.) 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 Id. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Santa Milind Dav…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7246/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstance being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the Id. 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 (Born.) 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 Id. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Santa Milind Dav…