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

Smartstream Technologies India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 6297/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Smartstream Technologies Dcit 8(3), India Pvt. Ltd. Aver Plaza, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. B-13, Mumbai-400020. Vs. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053. Pan: Aaacq2086M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Milin Thakore (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…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…

Pradip Bardhan vs. ITO, WD-33(3), Kolkata

In the result, ITA No. 1307/Kol/2016, dismissed & ITA No

ITA 1308/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 274Section 44B

…of the assessee. 4. This appeal of the assessee is against the order of the ld. CIT(A), cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. In this case, the irrelevant portions of the notice have not been struck off. In the case of CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Section 274 contains the principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard before levying penalty. Rul…

Pradip Bardhan, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-33(3), Kolkata

In the result, ITA No. 1307/Kol/2016, dismissed & ITA No

ITA 1307/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 274Section 44B

…of the assessee. 4. This appeal of the assessee is against the order of the ld. CIT(A), cancelling the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. In this case, the irrelevant portions of the notice have not been struck off. In the case of CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Section 274 contains the principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard before levying penalty. Rul…

Ajanta Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 6882/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena
Section 115JSection 132(4)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

…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…

Indrani Sunil Pillai, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1339/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Phadke a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.1339/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Mrs. Indrani Sunil Pillai 1204, “B” Wing Siddhivinayak Annexe ……………. Appellant Veer Nariman Road Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400 025 PAN – ACCPP3394C v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–21(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Tanmay Phadke a/w Shri Kedar Phadke Revenue by : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing – 10.01.2018 Date of Order – 19.01.2018 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Aforesaid appeal…

Lalit Jalan, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-32(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee, is allowed

ITA 350/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevanand Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Lalit Jalan, V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O M.S Orient Ward-32(3), 10B, Distributors, 26, Middelton Row, Sharespear Sarani, Kolkata-700 071 Kolkata-700 017 [Pan No.Acxpj5133G] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""थ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ"की ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/By Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21-12-2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/01/2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountantmember:- This Caption Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata,Dated 18.12.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Ofa Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C ) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Vide His Order Dated 13.09.2013. 2. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Whereby The Ld.Cit(A) Confirmed The Order Of Ao Imposing Penalty On The Assessee U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "ायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Memberand Dr.A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2010-11 Lalit Jalan, V/s. Income Tax Officer, C/o M.s Orient Ward-32(3), 10B, Distributors, 26, Middelton Row, Sharespear Sarani, Kolkata-700 071 Kolkata-700 017 [PAN No.ACXPJ5133G] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""थ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ"की ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/By Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 21-12-2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement…

M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd., Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee, is allowed

ITA 1347/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.1347/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd. -Vs.- Ito, Wd-12(3), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaecs 0334 C ] (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Appellant For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 17/01/2018 Order Per Dr. A.L. Saini, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.04.2016 Of Cit(A)-4, Kolkata Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of Cit(A) Whereby The Cit(A) Confirmed The Order Of Ao Imposing Penalty On The Assessee U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 3. The Facts & Circumstances Under Which Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Was Imposed On The Assessee Was That During The Assessment Year 2008-09, The Assessee Has Advanced Interest Free Loans To The Extent Of Rs.9,58,95,000/- & As There Had Been No Significant Repayment, The Closing Balance As On 31.03.2008 Was At Rs. 9,62,95,000/-. It Was Also Seen From The Details For A.Y. 2009-10, That There Had Been No Business Transactions Apart From Interest Free Loan Transactions. The Unsecured Loans On Which Interest Was Paid, Was Rs. 5,92,05,572/-, Which Was Much Below The Amount, Which Was Advanced By The Assessee Free Of Any Interest. Therefore, There Had Been No Justification Of Unsecured Loan Taken During The Year. Therefore, Whole Sum Of Interest Paid Of Rs. 62,84,112/- Was Disallowed. The Cit(A) Restricted The M/S. Snowtex Investment Ltd.

For Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl.CIT
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 41(1)

…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…

Mr Vijay Kumar Shaw, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-25(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee, is allowed

ITA 891/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevanand Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2006-07 Mr. Vijay Kumar Shaw V/S. Income Tax Officer, 88, Brijee Road, Garia Ward-25(2), Ayakar Kolkata-700 068 Bhawan, Dakshin, 2 [Pan No.Ambps 1819 A] Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-68 अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""थ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ"की ओर से/By Appellant Shri D. Chakraborty, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/By Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18-12-2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17-01-2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini:- This Caption Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7,Dated 08.05.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271 (1) (C )Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Vide His Order Dated 30.10.2013. 2. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) Whereby The Ld.Cit(A) Confirmed The Order Of Ao Imposing Penalty On The Assessee U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "ायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Memberand Dr.A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2006-07 Mr. Vijay Kumar Shaw V/s. Income Tax Officer, 88, Brijee Road, Garia Ward-25(2), Ayakar Kolkata-700 068 Bhawan, Dakshin, 2 [PAN No.AMBPS 1819 A] Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-68 अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""थ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ"की ओर से/By Appellant Shri D. Chakraborty, FCA ""थ" की ओर से/By Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 18-12-2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement…

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bandhan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1348/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Dcit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Bandhan Financial 4(1), Services Pvt. Ltd., 17/30, Aayakarbhavanpoorva, Dakshindari Road, Lake 110, Shanti Palli, E.M. Town, Kolkat-48 By Pass, 4Th Floor, [Pan No.Aabcg 0611 R] Kolkata-107 अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""थ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ"की ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""थ" की ओर से/By Respondent Shri Shikha Agarwal, Aca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11-12-2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/01/2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini:- This Caption Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Dated 07.08.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1) (C ) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Vide His Order Dated 26.09.2013. 2. In This Appeal, The Revenue Has Challenged The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) Whereby The Ld.Cit(A) Deleted The Order Of Ao Imposing Penalty On The Assessee U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "ायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Dr.A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2010-11 DCIT, Central Circle- V/s. M/s Bandhan Financial 4(1), Services Pvt. Ltd., 17/30, AayakarBhavanPoorva, Dakshindari Road, Lake 110, Shanti Palli, E.M. Town, Kolkat-48 By Pass, 4th Floor, [PAN No.AABCG 0611 R] Kolkata-107 अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""थ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ"की ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT-DR ""थ" की ओर से/By Respondent Shri Shikha Agarwal, ACA सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 11-12-…

M/S Baba Lokenath Rice Mill, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1746/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1746/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Baba Loknath Rice Mill -Vs- Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aacf 8831 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Hangshing, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 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…

M/S Swarn Ganga Gold Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1724/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1722 To 1724/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

M/S Swarn Ganga Gold Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1723/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1722 To 1724/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

M/S Swarn Ganga Gold Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1722/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1722 To 1724/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
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…

Pennozil Quaker State India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7503/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri F. V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
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…

DCIT 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pennzoil Quaker State India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7386/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri F. V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
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…

Shri Amit Kumar Gope, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-25, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1573/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Debayan Patra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ai, (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 ITA No.1573/Kol/2016 Shri Amit Kumar Gope A.Y.2011-12 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…

Deutsche Bank Ag, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 4724/MUM/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse
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…

Deutsche Bank Ag, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 4723/MUM/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2000-01

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

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse
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…

Cenzar Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1970/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

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

…arges and if the AO in the penalty order has levied penalty on anyone of the charges, then also it cannot be held that penalty order is bad in law. The Ld.DR referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) stated that the vagueness and ambiguity in the notice are mere mistake in language used or mere non striking off of inappropriate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice issued u/s 274. The AO has brought out clear facts of concealment of particulars of income in respect of disallowance of reimbursement of selling an distribution e…

Safiul Mallick, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1407/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

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 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 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…