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

Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. Dy CIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6284/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 6284/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Lubrizol India Private Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of 9/3, Thane Belapur Road, Income Tax, (Ltu)-2 फनाभ/ 29Th Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400 705 Florr, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aaaml0126H अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-1, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], Dated 06.08.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Ltu)-2, Mumbai (In Short Acit/ Ito/ Lubrizol India Private Limited; Ay: 11-12 Ao) For The A.Y. 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 23.02.2015 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ एविं श्री एभ. फारगणेश, रेखा सदस्म के सभऺ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM आमकय अऩीर सिं./ ITA No. 6284/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Lubrizol India Private Limited The Dy. Commissioner of 9/3, Thane Belapur Road, Income Tax, (LTU)-2 फनाभ/ 29th Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400 705 Florr, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Vs. parade, Mumbai-400 005 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./PAN No. AAAML0126H अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellan…

Sai Samarth Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1, Thane

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

ITA 3718/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 132oSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…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 ITA. Nos.…

P.K.Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. Pr.CIT, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6039/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6039/Del/2017 (A.Y 2008-09) (Through Physical Hearing) P. K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit C/O. Rra Tax India, D-28, Meerut, South Extension, Part-1, New Uttar Pradesh Delhi Aadcp4270D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…decisions: a) Vijay Agarwal vs. DCIT (ITA No. 5434 & 5435/Del/2016 2019-TOIL- 1628-ITAT-Del) b) Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) c) Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 250 (Mad. HC) d) CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) e) New Holland Tractors (India) P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 275 CTR 291(Del) f) Trimurti Engineering Works vs. ITO (2012) 138 ITD 189 (Del) 6 g) Hybrid Rice International Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (ITA No. 285/Del/2007) h) Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. DCIT (2017) 166 ITD 113 (Mum Tri.) i) DCIT vs. Shah Rukh Khan (2018) 93 taxmann.com 3…

M/S Chanda More F.L.(on) Shop, Asansol vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 573/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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

…1 M/s. Chanda More F.L. (On) Shop, AY 2008-09 आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")"ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 573/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Chanda More F. L. (on) Shop Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Asansol (PAN: AAEFC1893M) Appellant Respondent Date of virtual Hearing 16.12.2020 Date of Pronouncement 05.01.2021 For the Appellant N o n e For the Respondent Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri A. T. Varkey, JM: This…

M/S Job Need Security Services, North 24 Parganas vs. I.T.O., Ward-50(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1679/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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 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 Job Need Security Services, North 24 Parganas vs. I.T.O., Ward-50(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1678/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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 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…

D.C.I.T., Circle-13(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Mahabharat Motors Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271(1)(c)Section 71

…1 Mahabharat Motors Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd., AY 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/and "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 90/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Vs. M/s. Mahabharat Motors Mfg. Co. Pvt. Circle-13(1), Kolkata. Ltd. (PAN: AAECM5866D) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 13.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement 22.10.2020 For the Appellant Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, DR For the Respondent Sh…

Smt. Teeja Devi Saini, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1258/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. Hemang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ars of income. In support, the ld DR has relied on the High Court of Madras decision in case of Sundram Finance Ltd vs. ACIT, Channai reported in 93 Taxmann.com 250(Mad) and the Bombay High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya & others reported in 216 ITR 660(Bom). 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the instance case, we find that the penalty proceedings have been initiated during the course of assessment proceedings for concealing the particulars of income regarding long term capital gains on sale of immovable property and therefore, as far as rec…

Varun Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 510/KOL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

…1 Varun Finance P. Ltd., AY 2006-07 आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/and "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 510/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Varun Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-5(4), Kolkata (PAN: AABCV0302L) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 22.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 24.09.2020 For the Appellant N o n e For the Respondent Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This is an appeal…

Shri Tejpal Singh Nunia, Jhunjhunu vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals pertaining to the A

ITA 1296/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Binod Kr. Gupta &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nciple laid in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) still holds good in. spite of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (101 u/ s Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 1TR 277 (SC). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/ s Srnt. Kaushalya & Ors., [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Born), observed that notice issued under section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be made aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. The Court observed, vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity as he is unaware of the exact char…

Shri Tejpal Singh Nunia, Jhunjhunu vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals pertaining to the A

ITA 1295/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Binod Kr. Gupta &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nciple laid in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) still holds good in. spite of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (101 u/ s Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 1TR 277 (SC). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/ s Srnt. Kaushalya & Ors., [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Born), observed that notice issued under section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be made aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. The Court observed, vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity as he is unaware of the exact char…

Shri Tejpal Singh Nunia, Jhunjhunu vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals pertaining to the A

ITA 1294/JPR/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2020AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Binod Kr. Gupta &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nciple laid in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) still holds good in. spite of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (101 u/ s Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 1TR 277 (SC). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/ s Srnt. Kaushalya & Ors., [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Born), observed that notice issued under section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be made aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. The Court observed, vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity as he is unaware of the exact char…

Shree Naman Developers, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2796/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2796/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Shree Naman बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-5(4) Developers Limited (Now Mumbai. Vs. Known As M/S. Shree Namn Developers Pvt. Ltd.) 315, Parekh Market, 39, J.S.S, Road, Opera House, Mumbai-400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn2568H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue By: Shri Rahul Raman (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /09/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the ld. CIT-DR made an argument based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Others, 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Dav…

Vidyasagar Mahavir Prasad Sah, Mumbai vs. Adcit 23(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2460/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2460/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vidyasagar Mahavir Prasad बिधम/ Adcit 23(3) 104, 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, Sah Vs. 22 A Band Stand Society Tardeo Rd, Mumbai-400007. 197-C, Kane Rd Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps5412H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Madhur Aggarwal (Dr) Revenue By: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/ 08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal (DR)For Respondent: Shri Padma Ram Mirdha (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the ld. CIT-DR made an argument based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Others, 216 ITR 660 (Bom) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Dava…

Jamsetji Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT (E) I-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1010/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1010/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jamsetji Tata Trust बिधम/ Acit (E) 1-1 Bombay House, Homi Mody Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Street, Mumbai-400001. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatj0095N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Shri Shishir Dhamija (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.12.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…e decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the ld. CIT-DR made an argument based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Others, 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Dav…

Abhishek Singhal, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3((1), Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 144/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

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

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 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. C.S. Datamation Research Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3915/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

…igh Court has considered the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar.). Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1994) 216 ITR 660 6 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that mere mistake in language used or mere non-striking off of inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice under section 274. Accordingly penalty orders passed by the AO for different assessment years were held to be perfectly valid and there was no jus…

Beni Madhab Paul, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 97/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, 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. Kau…

Sikha Mittal, Tinsukia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Tinsukia

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 135/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

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

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

…1 Sikha Mittal IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, “E COURT” AT 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. 135/Gau/2019 Assessment Year:2015-16 Sikha Mittal Vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Tinsukia PAN: AJWPM 0214F Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 09.06.2020 Date of Pronouncement 10.06.2020 For the Appellant N o n e For the Respondent Shri M. C. Omi Ningshen, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals), Dibrugarh dated 2…

Rajeswar Yadav, Nagaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nagaon

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 323/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati05 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, 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. Kau…