What is CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Minor defects or mistakes in a penalty notice issued under Section 274 do not invalidate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) if the assessee suffers no prejudice and is aware of the charge. However, significant vagueness or ambiguity that demonstrates non-application of mind or causes prejudice can still render the notice invalid.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd.?

248 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. (149 ITR 751), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 274, Section 132, Section 271(1)(c), Section 271AAB.

CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. (149 ITR 751)

Ranjit Kumar Paul, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1744/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Hangshing, CIT(DR)

Section 132(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…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.…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Xylon Electrotechnic Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1582/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-3(3)(2) M/S Xylon Electrotechnic Room No. 609, 6Th Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, Aayakar A-491, 3Rd Pasta Lane, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Colaba, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaacx0088Q Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 285/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Xylon Electrotechnic Dcit-3(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Vs. A-491, 3Rd Pasta Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Colaba, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400005 Pan No. Aaacx0088Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. V. Mohan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 41(1)

…alidate the notice. The entire factual background would fall for consideration in the matter and no one aspect would be decisive. In this context, useful reference may be made to the following observation in the case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) (head note): 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. A mistake i…

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

…arnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. 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…

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

…arnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. 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…

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

…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.…

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)

…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.…

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

…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.…

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

…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 ITA No.1348/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 DCIT CC-4(1), Kol.…

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

…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 4 5 M/s Baba Loknath Rice Mill A.Yr.2010-11 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.…

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

…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.…

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

…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.…

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

…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.…

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

…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.…