CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt

426 ITR 478High Court2020#7458 most cited

What is CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt authority for?

Penalty proceedings can be vitiated if the notice issued under section 274 contains inapplicable portions, requiring deletion to ensure clarity and fairness, as distinguished from judgments like CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt).

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt) · Ventura Textiles Ltd. v. CIT · section 274 · penalty proceedings · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · vitiated notice · inapplicable portion · section 271(1)(c) · section 27

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particularssection 274concealment of incomesection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 27

Judgments citing CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt

Nirmal Narendrakumar Kotecha, Mumbai vs. Int. Tax, Ward-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, in terms of paragraph 24 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4592/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Nirmal Narendrakumar Kotecha C/o. Ronak Kotecha, 601, Sukh Castle, Bhandarkar Road, Matunga (Central) Mumbai – 400 019 PAN:AEZPK2016H …………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer International Taxation- 3(1)(1), Mumbai …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Ms. Kinjal Bhuta For the Respondent/Department : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha Date Conclusion of hearing : 22.05.2024 Pronouncement of order : 16.08.2024 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the…

Shri Ajaya Kumar Chadda, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Monga, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 146/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh. Ajay Kumar Chadda Vs. Income Tax Officer, 687-R, Model Town, Ward-1(1), Jalandhar Jalandhar, Punjab [PAN: AAIPC 7006J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Navdeep Monga, Adv. & Sh. Karan Nagpal, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 23.08.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeal has been filed by the by the assessee a…

Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Meerut

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5403/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Ito Ward-1, Meerut, S/O. Kashi Ram, Umes Distt. Meerut (Up) Vihar, 78-D, Naveen Mandi, Vs. Transport Nagar, Meerut Pan Ankpa8702E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Kumar Agarwal, ITO Ward-1, Meerut, S/o. Kashi Ram, Umes Distt. Meerut (UP) Vihar, 78-D, Naveen Mandi, vs. Transport Nagar, Meerut PAN ANKPA8702E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 19.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.05.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut, relating to Assessm…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 80/CTK/2009[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…hould definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage.' Cases considered: Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar.); SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) P a g e 3 | 8 8. Ventura Textiles Ltd. [2020] 426 ITR 478 (Bombay) 3....substantial questions of law:- D. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal ought to have held that the order passed under section 271(1) (c) is bad in view of the fact that both at the time of initiation as well as at the time of imposition of the penalty the Assessing Officer was not clear as to which…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 79/CTK/2009[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1989-90

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…hould definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage.' Cases considered: Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar.); SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) P a g e 3 | 8 8. Ventura Textiles Ltd. [2020] 426 ITR 478 (Bombay) 3....substantial questions of law:- D. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal ought to have held that the order passed under section 271(1) (c) is bad in view of the fact that both at the time of initiation as well as at the time of imposition of the penalty the Assessing Officer was not clear as to which…

The Prajatantra Prachar Samity, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 78/CTK/2009[1985-86]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 May 2022AY 1985-86

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Hota/Shri S.K,.AgarqwalFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 27

…hould definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage.' Cases considered: Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Kar.); SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) P a g e 3 | 8 8. Ventura Textiles Ltd. [2020] 426 ITR 478 (Bombay) 3....substantial questions of law:- D. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal ought to have held that the order passed under section 271(1) (c) is bad in view of the fact that both at the time of initiation as well as at the time of imposition of the penalty the Assessing Officer was not clear as to which…

Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation, New Delhi vs. DCIT (E), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2033/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2033/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2009-10) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation Vs DCIT(E) C/o. Bajaj Auto Ltd. Circle-1(1), Room No. 2418, B/60-61, Naraina Industrial 24th Floor, E-2, Pratyaksh Area, Phase-II, New Delhi Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, AAATJ0402B J. L. Nehru Marg, (APPELLANT) New Delhi (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv, Sh. Mahender Govil, CA Respondent by Sh. Munish Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 12.08.2021 Date of Pron…

Rajmata Jijabai Co.Op.Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Warad 15 (1)(3) Now ITO Ward 26 (2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6694/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6694/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2007-08) Rajmata Jijabai Co-Op Hsg. The Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd. Ward, Mumbai फनाभ/ 28, Veena Beena, Gurunank Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400 050 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaar2683R अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri M. Subramanian, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-38, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-38/Ito.15(1)(3)/It.10814/2014-15 Vide Dated 24.07.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Rajmata Jijabai Co-Op Hsg. Society Ltd.; Ay 07-08 Tax Officer, Ward 15(1)(3), Mumbai (In Short Ito/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2007-08 Vide Order Dated 27.12.2010 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). The Penalty Is Levied By Ito, Ward 15(1)(3), Mumbai Under Section 271(1)(C) Vide Order Dated 26.03.2014. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Levying The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. For This, Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground No.1:-

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “D” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष एविं श्री ए रयपऔय यहभान, रेखा दस्म के भक्ष BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आमकय अऩीर िं./ ITA No. 6694/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2007-08) Rajmata Jijabai Co-op Hsg. The Income Tax Officer, Society Ltd. Ward, Mumbai फनाभ/ 28, Veena Beena, Gurunank Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400 050 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./PAN No. AAAAR2683R अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant by : Shri M. Subramanian, AR प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent…

Shrimati Ravneet Kaur Grewal, Mohali vs. Deputy Commiossioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/ASR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

…tes in vitiating the penalty proceedings in view of the full bench Judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “Moh. Farhan A. Shaikh”, (Supra), where that CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt ) (1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom)(HC) and Ventura Textiles Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 426 ITR 478 (Bom)(HC) were distinguished by following hon’ble Apex Court judgement in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 10. Thus, a mandatory condition is required regarding communication to the assessee and that ought to be a valid communication even if a notice contains no 8 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 matter but that the inapplicable…

Shrimati Ravneet Kaur Grewal, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incme Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

…tes in vitiating the penalty proceedings in view of the full bench Judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “Moh. Farhan A. Shaikh”, (Supra), where that CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt ) (1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom)(HC) and Ventura Textiles Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 426 ITR 478 (Bom)(HC) were distinguished by following hon’ble Apex Court judgement in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 10. Thus, a mandatory condition is required regarding communication to the assessee and that ought to be a valid communication even if a notice contains no 8 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 matter but that the inapplicable…

Shrimati Ravneet Kaur Grewal, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

…tes in vitiating the penalty proceedings in view of the full bench Judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “Moh. Farhan A. Shaikh”, (Supra), where that CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt ) (1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom)(HC) and Ventura Textiles Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 426 ITR 478 (Bom)(HC) were distinguished by following hon’ble Apex Court judgement in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 10. Thus, a mandatory condition is required regarding communication to the assessee and that ought to be a valid communication even if a notice contains no 8 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 matter but that the inapplicable…

Shrimati Ravneet Kaur Grewal, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/ASR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

…tes in vitiating the penalty proceedings in view of the full bench Judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “Moh. Farhan A. Shaikh”, (Supra), where that CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt ) (1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom)(HC) and Ventura Textiles Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 426 ITR 478 (Bom)(HC) were distinguished by following hon’ble Apex Court judgement in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 10. Thus, a mandatory condition is required regarding communication to the assessee and that ought to be a valid communication even if a notice contains no 8 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 matter but that the inapplicable…

Shrimati Ravneet Kaur Grewal, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissoner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/ASR/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

…tes in vitiating the penalty proceedings in view of the full bench Judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “Moh. Farhan A. Shaikh”, (Supra), where that CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt ) (1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom)(HC) and Ventura Textiles Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 426 ITR 478 (Bom)(HC) were distinguished by following hon’ble Apex Court judgement in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 10. Thus, a mandatory condition is required regarding communication to the assessee and that ought to be a valid communication even if a notice contains no 8 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 matter but that the inapplicable…

Shrimati Ravneet Kaur Grewal, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the bunch of appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 48/ASR/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. Nos. 48 To 53/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

…tes in vitiating the penalty proceedings in view of the full bench Judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “Moh. Farhan A. Shaikh”, (Supra), where that CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt ) (1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom)(HC) and Ventura Textiles Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 426 ITR 478 (Bom)(HC) were distinguished by following hon’ble Apex Court judgement in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). 10. Thus, a mandatory condition is required regarding communication to the assessee and that ought to be a valid communication even if a notice contains no 8 I.T.A. Nos. 48 to 53/Asr/2021 matter but that the inapplicable…

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. The Thane District Central Co. Op. Bank Ltd, Thane

In the result, cross objection is allowed as indicated above and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2138/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman ()

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

…ision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Mohammed Farhan A Shaikh vs DCIT (2021) 200 DTR (Bom)(FB) 65. He also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Ventura Textiles Ltd vs CIT (2020) 426 ITR 478 (Bom). Further, he submitted, under identical facts and circumstances, due to defect in the show cause notice issued under section 274 of the Act, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2008-09 and 5 ITA 2138/Mum/2018 CO 215/Mum/2019 2009-10 has deleted penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, he submitted, i…

CIT v. Kaushalya (Smt (426 ITR 478) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax