CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya
75 Taxmann 549High Court1994#2582 most cited
What is CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya authority for?
The assessing officer must specifically state the ground for penalty under section 271(1)(c), clarifying whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Failure to specify the exact limb of the section can render the penalty order invalid.
45
judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.
Also referred to as
CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · specifying penalty ground · validity of penalty order · Bombay High Court · section 274 · non-application of mind · speaking order
Sections most often in play
Issues it is cited on
Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya
Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3