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

Shri Bishnu Chandra Dutta, Tripura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Udaipur, Agartala

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 262/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati05 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

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

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 Shri Bishnu Chandra Dutta, AY- 2014-15 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. 262/Gau/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Bishnu Chandra Dutta Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-Udaipur (PAN:AHOPD8223B) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 02.06.2020 Date of Pronouncement 05.06.2020 For the Appellant N o n e For the Respondent Shri M. K. Das, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of th…

M/S. Joyram Traders, Agartala vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Agartala

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 248/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati05 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…

M/S. Rathi Loha Impex Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2365/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2014-15

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 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 Hindon Forge (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4738/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. C.P. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)

…ts, penalty under section 271(1)© was to be levied for filing inaccurate particulars of income. iii) Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras) (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras) iv) CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1994) 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay) [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay). v) Trimurti Engineering Works vs. ITO (2012) 25 taxmann.com 363 (Delhi/ [2012] 138 ITD 189 (Delhi) [2012] 150 TTJ 195 (Delhi) Where ITAT, Delhi held that it was apparent from combined reading of notice and assessment order that impugned notice had been issued in respect of concealment of particulars of income. vi) Hybrid Rice Interna…

Sri Mukesh Kumar Khaitan, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-23(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

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…

JCIT(OSD), CC-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Websol Energy System Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 962/KOL/2019[201314]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020

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

Section 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…

Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3116/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

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

…reliance on following decisions: i. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) ii. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250 (Madras)/[2018] 403 ITR 407 (Madras) iii. CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay)/[1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) iv. New Holland Tractors (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 573 (Delhi)/[2015] 228 Taxman 66 (Delhi)/[2015] 275 CTR 291 (Delhi) v. Trimurti Engineering Works Vs. ITO [2012] 25 taxmann.com 363 (Delhi)/[2012] 138 ITD 189 (Delhi)/[2012] 150 TTJ 195 (Delhi) vi. Hybrid Rice International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITA No. 285/2007) vii.…

DCIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata vs. M/S. Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and COs of the assessee are dismissed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 453/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

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

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…

DCIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata vs. M/S. Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and COs of the assessee are dismissed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 452/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

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

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…

Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and COs of the assessee are dismissed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 369/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

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

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…

Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and COs of the assessee are dismissed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 368/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

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

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…

Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range - 35, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and COs of the assessee are dismissed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 367/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

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

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…

Anil Gyanchand Pahilani, Kalyan vs. ACIT Circle-3, Kalyan

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4569/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) - Ay 2010-11 - Ay 2011-12 - Ay 2012-13

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

…d principle laid in Dilip N. Shroff (supra) still holds good in spite of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v/s Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Smt. Kaushalya & Ors., [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom), 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 charg…

Rheal Software P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 670/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, DR
Section 10BSection 139(5)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274r

…v Mishra (41 SOT 17), the Ld. counsel submits that mere denial of claim would not per se result in levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 5.2 The Ld. counsel submits that in the case of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya & Ors 216 ITR 660 (Bom) relied on by the CIT(A), the High Court held that in AY 1967-68, the penalty was rightly deleted by the Tribunal since the notice was issued without specifying the exact charge by the Department against the assessee ; however, in so far as AY 1968-69 and 1969-70 were concerned, the High Court held that on facts for those year, the assessee…

Late Shashiraj Kapoor (Through Legal Representive Kunal Kapoor), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5913/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5913/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिधम/ Late Shashiraj Kapoor Acit Circle 16(1) (Through Legal 439, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Representative Kunal Mumbai-400020. Kapoor) 6, Prithvi Theatre, Janta Kutir Juhu Church Road, Juhu, Mumbai-400049. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpk0578J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina Revenue By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 02.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2013-14 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 2. Ita. No5913/M/2018 A.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Firoz AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

…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…

Deepak Jatia, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 940/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 940 To 943/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14) बिधम/ Deepak Jatia Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Old Marathon Innova, „A‟ Wing, Vs. 7Th Floor, Off. G. K. Marg, Cgo Bldg, Annexure, M.K. Lower Parel, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400020. 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adxpj8701D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh Jang Pangi
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)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…

Mayasheel Construction, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3937/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 3936 & 3937/DEL/2019 (Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Mayasheel Construction Vs DCIT, C/o. Kapil Goel, Adv., Circle -1, G-26-124, Sector-7, Ghaziabad Rohini, Delhi – 110 085 (PAN: AAPFM 5854 R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Kapil Goyal, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing 17.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These two appeals are filed by the assessee against two separate orders dated 28.02.2019 passed by…

Mayasheel Construction, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3936/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 3936 & 3937/DEL/2019 (Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Mayasheel Construction Vs DCIT, C/o. Kapil Goel, Adv., Circle -1, G-26-124, Sector-7, Ghaziabad Rohini, Delhi – 110 085 (PAN: AAPFM 5854 R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Kapil Goyal, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing 17.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM These two appeals are filed by the assessee against two separate orders dated 28.02.2019 passed by…

Manoj Kumar Chowdhury, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 61(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2420/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Manoj Kumar Chowdhury Vs. Ito, Ward-61(4), Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…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 Manoj Kumar Chowdhury Assessment Year: 2009-10 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…

Shyamal Kumar Roy, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Durgapur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 483/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 ITA Nos. 481-484/Kol/2019 Shyamal Kumar roy, AYs-2011-12 to 2014-15 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. Nos. 481-484/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 Shyamal Kumar Roy Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-1(1), Durgapur (PAN: AFGPR1544F) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 16.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2019 For the Appellant N o n e For the Respondent Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A. T. V…