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 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 7245/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

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…

Arunava Guha, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-21, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1548/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

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

…1 Arunava Guha., 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 "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A. No. 1548/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Arunava Guha (PAN: ACVPG6427A) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax, Circle-21, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 06.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement 14.03.2018 For the Appellant Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey…

Tradelink Securities Ltd., Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-4(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 915/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 914&915/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Tradelink Securities Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaact 9210 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. R. KothariFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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…

Tradelink Securities Ltd., Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-4(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 914/KOL/2015[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 914&915/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Tradelink Securities Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-4(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaact 9210 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. R. KothariFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 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…

Bipin Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1143/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “बी” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.1142 & 1143/PUN/2016 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Bipin Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Gat No. 136, Varve Budruk, Pune Satara Road, Tal.-Bhor, Pune – 412205 PAN : AAACB7051R .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sharad Shah Revenue by : Dr…

Bipin Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1142/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “बी” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.1142 & 1143/PUN/2016 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Bipin Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Gat No. 136, Varve Budruk, Pune Satara Road, Tal.-Bhor, Pune – 412205 PAN : AAACB7051R .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sharad Shah Revenue by : Dr…

Ms/ Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries, Agra vs. The A.C.I.T., Circle-4(1), Agra

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

ITA 378/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Mar 2018AY 2008-09
Section 271Section 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. I.T.A No. 378/Agra/2014 15 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) ha…

ACIT, Circle-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Durgapur Chemicals Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2123/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

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 D. Bhadra, 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…

Dars Business Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1130/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate, 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…

Arjunlal Khemraj Kothari, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6413/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Devendra H. Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshen (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 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…

M/S Maa Engineering, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-51, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 243/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2010-2011

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

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 Maa Engineering, AY- 2010-11 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. 243/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Maa Engineering Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (PAN: AAIFM7800L) Circle-51, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 05.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement 07.03.2018 For the Appellant Shri Sunil Surana, FCA For the Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattaharjee, Addl. CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM The…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Mohan Lal Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 206/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 Mohan Lal Agarwal, AY- 2008-09 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. 206/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Shri Mohan Lal Agarwal Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata. (PAN: ACVPA7179F) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 05.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement 07.03.2018 For the Appellant Shri A. K. Tiwari, CIT For the Respondent Sm. Shikha Agarwal, ACA ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM The…

Eleganza Furnishing P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2158/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri D.V. LakhaniFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nza Furnishing Pvt. Ltd., 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…

Sumer Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst Citcen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 494/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…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…

M/S Ram Swarup Rungta & Brothers, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 118/RAN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 Mar 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mallik, JCIT, ld. 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…

Ams Fashions Private Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata 4, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 1542/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri.N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Sri.Waseem Ahmed Am]

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 71

…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. 9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kaushalya (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or t…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Rajesh Bathwal, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 364/RAN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

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…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Rajesh Bathwal, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 362/RAN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

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…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Rajesh Bathwal, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 361/RAN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

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…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Rajesh Bathwal, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 360/RAN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Feb 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

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…