CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd.

M/S Ram Swarup Rungta & Brothers, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 118/Ran/16 A.Y: 2007-08 M/s. Ram Swarup Vs. D.C.I.T, C.C-1, Rungta Rungta & Brothers PAN:AAGFR6754E [Appellant] [Respondent] I.T.A No. 119/Ran/16 A.Y: 2008-09 M/s. Ram Swarup Vs. D.C.I.T, C.C-1, Rungta Rungta & Brothers PAN:AAGFR6754E [Appellant] [Respondent] For the Appellant : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.AR For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Mallik, JCIT, ld. DR Date of hearing : 27-02-2018 Date of pronouncement : 01-03…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Rajesh Bathwal, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he 4 I.T.A. No.360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Rajesh…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Rajesh Bathwal, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he 4 I.T.A. No.360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Rajesh…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Rajesh Bathwal, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he 4 I.T.A. No.360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Rajesh…

DCIT Central Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Rajesh Bathwal, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Assessment Years :2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Acit Cir 1.........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Rajesh Bathwal...................……………………………………..................................Respondent Saheed Jaswant Singh Marg, Lake Raod, Ranchi – 834 001 [Pan: Adgpb 9315 E] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28 , 2018 Order All These Are Revenue’S Appeal Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Have Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he 4 I.T.A. No.360, 361, 362, 363 & 364/Ran/2016 Rajesh…

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. Nos. 354/Ran/2016 Assessment Year :2008-09 Acit Cir 1...........................................................................................................................Appellant 7Th Floor, Mahabir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834 001. Shri Raj Kumar Shah...................……………………………………..................................Respondent European Quarter Chaibasa, Jharkhand – 833 201 [Pan: Alkps 7305 M] Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Malik, Jr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, Advocatel Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2018 Order The Revenue’S Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act, Has Been Cancelled By The Ld. Cit(A).

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he 4 I.T.A. No.354/Ran/2016 Raj Kumar Shah had to meet a…

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

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

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

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard.…

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

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

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

…ecision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon’ble Patna High court in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being heard.…