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

149 ITR 751High Court1984#347 most cited

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.

248

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mithila Motors (P.) Ltd. · 149 ITR 751 · Section 274 · Section 271(1)(c) · defective penalty notice · validity of penalty proceedings · no prejudice to assessee · opportunity of show cause · awareness of charge · concealment of income penalty · inaccurate particulars

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1b)section 274(1)deletion of penaltypenalty proceedings initiatedfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularssection 274concealment of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 270levy of penalty

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

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Dhaval D Shah, Mumbai

ITA 1337/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Dhaval D. Shah Income, Central Smag House, 1St Floor, Vs. Circle2(3), Old Cgo Sarojini Road Ext., Vile Building, 8Th Floor, M.K. Parle (W) Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400010 Pan No. Aahps2691E Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 08/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Dhaval D. Shah Dy. Commissioner Of Smag House, 1St Floor, Income, Central Vs. Sarojini Road Ext., Vile Circle2(3), Old Cgo Parle (W) Building, 8Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400010 Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahps2691E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Assessee By : Mr. M.P. Lohia, Ar Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. M.P. Lohia, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27lSection 57

…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…

M/S Hallmark Construction, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD.3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2141/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

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.…

N. Jamnadas & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 4055/MUM/2016[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2018AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1997-98 & Assessment Year: 1998-99 N. Jamnadas & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Of 16, Bank Street, Fort, Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs. Mumbai-400001. 6(4), Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaccfn8427G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Y.P. Trivedi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/04/2018

For Appellant: Dr. Y.P. Trivedi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37

…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…

Basant Kumar Hamirbasia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 703/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

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

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.…

Associated Trading, Hooghly vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Dgp, Burdwan

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 778/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

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 4 Associated Trading, AY- 2010-11 prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was aware of the charges he had to meet and was g…

Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 562/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri A.N. Chatterjee, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 562/Kol/2017 A.Y: 2008-09 Abhijit Ghosh Vs. Income Tax Officer Dastidar Ward 13(1), Kolkata. PAN: ADQPG 5021N [Appellant] [Respondent] For the Appellant : Shri A.N. Chatterjee, FCA, ld.AR For the Respondent : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR Date of hearing : 05-04-2018 Date of pronouncement : 20-04-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Suruchi Vihar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.233/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(3), -Vs.- M/S. Suruchi Vihar Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata [Pan : Aagcs 6819 N] (Revenue) (Assessee) & Co No.35/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Suruchi Vihar Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- Acit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata [Pan : Aagcs 6819 N] (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 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.…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Hi-Life Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.231/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(3), -Vs.- M/S. Hi-Life Traders Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata [Pan :Aaach 7860 C] (Revenue) (Assessee) & Co No.23/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Hi-Life Traders Pvt. Ltd -Vs.- Acit, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata [Pan : Aaach 7860 C] (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Reliance was also placed by the 4 M/s. Hi-life Traders Pvt. Ltd. I.T.A No.231/Kol/2017 CO No.23/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 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 Lcc Infotech Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -2(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2041/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.2041/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Lcc Infotech Ltd. -Vs.- I.T.O, Ward-2(2), [Pan : Aacca 2580 J] (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Ejat Khan and D. Das, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 41(1)

…Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance was also placed by the 3 M/s. LCC Infotech Ltd. I.T.A No.2041/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 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, Circle-2, Jalpaiguri vs. M/S Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Coochbihar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1666/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: The Bench On 27-11-2017 In The Case Of Jeetmal Choraria In Ita No. 956/Kol/2016 For The A.Y 2010-11 May Be Adopted In This Case Also. In Support Of His Contention, He Relied On The Order Of The Ao & Opposed The Order Of The Cit-A In Cancelling The Impugned Penalty Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Smt. Parnashree Banerjee, Advocate, ld.AR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 1666/Kol/2016 A.Y: 2012-13 DCIT, Circle-2 Vs. Uttar Banga Kshetriya Jalpaiguri Gramin Bank PAN: AAACU9683Q [Appellant] [Respondent] For the Appellant : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR For the Respondent : Smt. Parnashree Banerjee, Advocate, ld.AR Date of hearing : 21-03-2018 Date of pronouncement : 20-04-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Ahmednagar Forging Ltd

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 181/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 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.…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Ahmednagar Forging Ltd

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 180/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 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.…

DCIT, CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Electrosteeel Castings Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 410/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-2010

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 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…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, CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Electrosteeel Castings Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 409/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

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 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…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, CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Electrosteeel Castings Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 408/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

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 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…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, CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Electrosteeel Castings Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 407/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

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 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…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, CC-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Electrosteeel Castings Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 406/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2005-2006

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 132Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

…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.…

Challauddin Sepai, South 24 Parganas vs. ITO, Ward 53(2)/Now 26(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 639/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri R.S. Ghosal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 639/Kol/2017 A.Y: 2011-12 Challauddin Sepai Vs. Income-tax Officer PAN: AYMPS 3531Q Ward 53(2), now 26(2), Kolkata [Appellant] [Respondent] For the Appellant : Shri R.S. Ghosal, Advocate, ld.AR For the Respondent : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR Date of hearing : 09-04-2018 Date of pronouncement : 13-04-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income T…

Rabindra Nath Naskar, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-47, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 376/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 376/Kol/2017 A.Y: 2005-06 Rabindra Nath Naskar Vs. Deputy Commissioner PAN: ABJPN 0362L of Income-tax, Circle-47 [ Now ITO, 48(1),Kolkata [Appellant] [Respondent] For the Appellant : Shri Miraj D. Shah, ld.AR For the Respondent : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR Date of hearing : 28-03-2018 Date of pronouncement : 13-04-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissi…

Madhabi Das, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 147/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No. 147/Kol/2017 A.Y: 2011-12 Madhabi Das Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of PAN: AHKPD 7780K Income-tax Officer, Circle-2, Hooghly [Appellant] [Respondent] For the Appellant : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, ld.AR For the Respondent : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR Date of hearing : 28-03-2018 Date of pronouncement : 13-04-2018 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner o…