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 Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Raj Kumar Shah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 354/RAN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 354/Ran/2016 Assessment Year :2008-09 Acit Cir 1...........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Raj Kumar Shah...................……………………………………..................................Respondent European Quarter Chaibasa, Jharkhand – 833 201 [Pan: Alkps 7305 M] 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 The Revenue’S Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Has 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…

M/S Vaisnavi Agro, Deoghar vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Deoghar

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

ITA 237/RAN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A. No. 236 & 237/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Vaishnavi Agro...................................................................................................Appellant Bandha Town Area, P.O. B. Deoghar – 814 112. Jharkhand. [Pan: Aaefv 0289 J Income Tax Officer...................…………………….....................................................Respondent Ward No. Iii(1), Deoghar. Appearances By: Shri M.K. Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Malik, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am

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…

Vaisnavi Agro, Deoghar vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Deoghar

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

ITA 236/RAN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A. No. 236 & 237/Ran/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. Vaishnavi Agro...................................................................................................Appellant Bandha Town Area, P.O. B. Deoghar – 814 112. Jharkhand. [Pan: Aaefv 0289 J Income Tax Officer...................…………………….....................................................Respondent Ward No. Iii(1), Deoghar. Appearances By: Shri M.K. Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Malik, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am

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…

Bal Kishan Agarwala, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 13/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 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 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

…1 Bal Kishan Agarwala, 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. 13/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Bal Kishan Agarwala Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-43(3), Kolkata (PAN: AESPA8882L) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 21.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2018 For the Appellant Shri M. D. Shah, AR For the Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM The appeal filed by t…

M/S Veronica Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(4)/ Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2445/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 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 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 Veronica Commerce (P) Ltd., 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. 2445/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Veronica Commerce (P) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-1(4), Kolkata (PAN: AACCV4682L) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 19.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2018 For the Appellant Smt. Shikha Agarwal, AR For the Respondent Shri A. K. Tiwari, CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM The appe…

Subhash Chaudhary, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-40(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

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

…1 Subhash Chaudhary, AY- 2010-11 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. 1394/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Subhash Chaudhary Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-40(2), Kolkata (PAN: ACQPC3775Q) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 22.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2018 For the Appellant Shri J. M. Thard, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattaharjee, Addl. CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM The appe…

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Alishan Steel Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 31/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2009-2010

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 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 Alishan Steel Pvt. Ltd., AY- 2009-10 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” 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. 31/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. Alishan Steel Pvt. Ltd. Circle-8(1), Kolkata. (PAN: AAACG9883E) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 22.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement 28.02.2018 For the Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR For the Respondent Shri P. K. Agarwal, AR ORDER Per Shri A.…

M/S Fast Capital Markets Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD.12(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2235/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri Arvind Agarwal Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, 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. Kaus…

Ratan Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1748/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

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

…1 Ratan Kumar Paul, AY- 2008-09 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. 1748/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ratan Kumar Paul Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AKLPP6116F) C.C-XXVII, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 23.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement 14.02.2018 For the Revenue Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Assessee Shri A. K. Tiwari, CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, J…

ACIT, Cir-3, Malda vs. Dakshin Dinajpur Zilla Regulated Market Committee, Dakshin Dinajpur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Jt. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jalan, AR
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. Kau…

Anil Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1392/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1392/Mum/2015 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Shri Anil V. Mehta Income Tax Officer-14(3)(1) 32, Sharaf Mansion Earnest House Vs. Princess Street Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400002 PAN – AEWPM6108B Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Shailesh Parmar Respondent by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date of Hearing: 10.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 14.02.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM These appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A)-25…

Anil Vinodbhai Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1324/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1392/Mum/2015 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2007-08) Shri Anil V. Mehta Income Tax Officer-14(3)(1) 32, Sharaf Mansion Earnest House Vs. Princess Street Mumbai 400021 Mumbai 400002 PAN – AEWPM6108B Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Shailesh Parmar Respondent by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date of Hearing: 10.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 14.02.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM These appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the CIT(A)-25…

M/S Akanksha Viniyog Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward -1(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1555/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam 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. Kau…

Chagan Lal Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-44, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1340/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Shri J.M. Thard, 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. Kaus…

ITO 13(2)(3), Mangalore vs. Shangrial Sales P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7525/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito-13(2)(3) M/S Shangrila Sales Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Room No. 1468, 50, Link Side Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Carter Road, Bandra (West), Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 050 Mumbai-20 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aafcs3227B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidyadhar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstance being bad, has been approved. Apart from the aforesaid, the Id. CIT-DR made an 11. 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. Sarita Milind Da…

ACIT 27(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Rustom Ice & Cold Storage Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5863/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleacit 27(3) V. M/S. Rustom Ice & Cold Storage Co., 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, C/O. Ragi Ice & Cold Storage, Vashi Railway Station Bpt Godown, 166 Sasoon Building Complex, Dock, Colaba Vashi – 400 703 Mumbai 400 005 Pan No: Aaafr 7587 D

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…16. (e) PCIT v. Smt. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (f) T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [292 ITR 11] (g) M/s. Orbit enterprises v. ITO–15(2)(2) in ITA.No. 1596 & 1597/Mum/2014. (h) Jehangir HC Jehangir v. ACIT in ITA.No. 1261/Mum/2011 (i) CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya and others [216 ITR 660] (j) M/s. M. Waseeq Cafetaria v. ITO in ITA.No. 08/PUN/2014 3. Ld.DR however placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya and others [216 ITR 660] submitted that defect in notice will not absolve assessee from the charge of concealment of particulars income. It is further submitted…

Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 6287/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhsadhana Nitro Chem Ltd. Dcit 7(2), Hira Baug, 1St Floor, Room No. 670, 6Th Floor, Kasturba Chowk (C.P. Tank), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai – 400 004. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aabcs1231R

For Appellant: Shri V.Mohan (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271Section 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 8 ITA No.6287/M/2014 – Sadhana Nitro Chem Ltd. 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 coord…

Ranjit Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1745/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Hangshing, CIT(DR)
Section 132(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down in the decision has been given in the written note filed before us. 9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kau…

Ranjit Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1744/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Hangshing, CIT(DR)
Section 132(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ving Equipment Service Corporation Vs. DCIT 22(2), Mumbai, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 51 (iii) Mahesh M.Gandhi Vs. ACIT Vs. ACIT ITA No.2976/Mum/2016 dated 27.2.2017. Reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom) and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not furnished. However a gist of the ratio laid down in the decision has been given in the written note filed before us. 9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kau…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Xylon Electrotechnic Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1582/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-3(3)(2) M/S Xylon Electrotechnic Room No. 609, 6Th Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, Aayakar A-491, 3Rd Pasta Lane, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Colaba, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaacx0088Q Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 285/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Xylon Electrotechnic Dcit-3(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Vs. A-491, 3Rd Pasta Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaacx0088Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. V. Mohan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT-3(3)(2) M/s Xylon Electrotechnic Room No. 609, 6th Pvt. Ltd., Vs. floor, Aayakar A-491, 3rd Pasta Lane, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Colaba, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400005 PAN No. AAACX0088Q Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 285/MUM/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Xylon Electrotechnic DCIT-3(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 609, 6th floor, Vs. A-491, 3rd Pasta Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400005 PAN No. AAACX0088Q Appellant…