CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

386 ITR 13Reported decision2016#4432 most cited

What is CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows authority for?

A penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it does not specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. This issue goes to the root of the matter and can render the entire penalty order void.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows · penalty notice · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · section 271(1)(c) · void penalty · jurisdictional challenge · assessee's grounds

Also reported as

72 Taxmann.com 248

Judgments citing CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

MAA SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABGAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8181/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ssessee took an additional ground that in the penalty notice, the charge has not been specified whether the notice was for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Assessee quoted the decision of CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows 386 ITR 13. Several other decisions were also quoted in this regard that not specifying the default in the penalty notice makes the issue void. Ld. CIT (A) did not address the case laws mentioned. He only mentioned that such ground cannot be raised before him and that moreover the requirement of service is 3 ITA No.8181/Del./2019 only of notice and since a…

RAIPUR SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue

ITA 164/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 164/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Raipur Securities & Investment Ltd. Mig 21, Indravati Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccr4419F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…if the notice does not specify the charge and if the AO does not strike off the irrelevant part in the notice, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained: - CIT & Another vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning 359 ITR 565 (Kar.), SLP dismissed on 5.8.2016 vide (2016) 386 ITR 13 (St.). Manjunatha followed in CIT vs Samson Perinchery (Bom.) M.G. Contractor Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, ITA no. 7034 to 7038/Del./2014 order dt. 19.09.2016 of "E" Bench. Pr. CIT vs Smt. Baisetty Revathi (2017) 398 ITR 88 (T & AP) Indrani Sunil Pillai vs ACIT (2018) 52 CCH 56 (Mum. Trib.) Jeetmal Choraria vs ACIT in ITA no. 956/Kol.2016 order dt. 01.12.20…

RAJESH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8180/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2021AY 2009-10
Section 271(1)(c)

…in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka). 5. It is evident from a reading of para 5.2 to para 5.2.3 of the impugned order that the issue was considered in the context of the position of law as considered in SSA Emerald Meadows 386 ITR 13 only. However, the challenge posed on the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was not addressed despite the fact that it was ground no. 2 raised before the CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, on this short point alone which goes to the very root of the matter the entire order is set aside in toto and the issues are restored back to the file…

LATE SHRI MOOL CHAND TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Sehgal, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…tice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify for which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty proceedings are initiated. It was further followed in another decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows 386 ITR 13 which has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Such view was also taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Samson Perincherry (2017) 392 ITR page 4 (Bom). In the present case is squarely covered by all the above judicial precedents in favour of the assessee. Further on the peculiar facts the AO levied penalty for furnishing inac…

DCIT - CIRCLE- 3 THANE, MUMBAI vs. SHANKAR KRISHNA KELKAR, THANE

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2509/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2509/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-Circle-3 Shri Shankar Krishna Kelkar Room No.02, 6Th Floor Prop- M/S Standard Diesel बनाम Ashar It Park, B-Wing Vishwas Hospital Basement / Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16Z Behind Ghantali Temple Thane(W), Thane-400 0604 Naupada, Thane(W)-400 062 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abbpk-8636-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/02/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01 /02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…1 Shankar Krishna Kelkar Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “जी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2509/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) DCIT-Circle-3 Shri Shankar Krishna Kelkar Room No.02, 6th Floor Prop- M/s Standard Diesel बनाम Ashar IT Park, B-Wing Vishwas Hospital Basement / Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Road No.16Z Behind…

GIRI BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4419/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudiya, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142Section 22Section 22(4)Section 271Section 274

…n the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in confirming the levy of penalty even though partly by disregarding the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in 386 ITR 13 confirming the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manju Natha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565.” 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. I have carefully perused the grounds of appeal mentioned hereinabove and pointed out to the ld. DR that the appeal can be decided ex parte since the quarrel is wel…

KRISHNA DEVI (INDIVUDUAL),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44(1), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed as all the appeals are identical

ITA 8017/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) -15 was incorrect and unjustified in sustaining the penalty unjustifiably levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) by holding that Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in 386 ITR 13 and Manjunath etc would not help the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) -15 was incorrect and unjustified in holding that penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) by the AO was correct and justified even in the presence of SSA's Emerald Meadows and Manjunath judgments and also others as given before the CIT(A).…

KRISHNA DEVI (INDIVUDUAL),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44(1), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed as all the appeals are identical

ITA 8016/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) -15 was incorrect and unjustified in sustaining the penalty unjustifiably levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) by holding that Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in 386 ITR 13 and Manjunath etc would not help the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) -15 was incorrect and unjustified in holding that penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) by the AO was correct and justified even in the presence of SSA's Emerald Meadows and Manjunath judgments and also others as given before the CIT(A).…

KRISHNA DEVI (INDIVUDUAL),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44(1), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed as all the appeals are identical

ITA 8019/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) -15 was incorrect and unjustified in sustaining the penalty unjustifiably levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) by holding that Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in 386 ITR 13 and Manjunath etc would not help the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) -15 was incorrect and unjustified in holding that penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) by the AO was correct and justified even in the presence of SSA's Emerald Meadows and Manjunath judgments and also others as given before the CIT(A).…

KRISHNA DEVI (INDIVUDUAL),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44(1), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed as all the appeals are identical

ITA 8018/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) -15 was incorrect and unjustified in sustaining the penalty unjustifiably levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) by holding that Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in 386 ITR 13 and Manjunath etc would not help the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) -15 was incorrect and unjustified in holding that penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) by the AO was correct and justified even in the presence of SSA's Emerald Meadows and Manjunath judgments and also others as given before the CIT(A).…

SHYAM KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 44(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 8030/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh

For Appellant: Sh. B.L. Gupta, ITPFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…-15 was incorrect and unjustified in sustaining the penalty unjustifiably levied by the AO u/s 271(1 )(c) by holding that Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of ITA Nos.:- 8026 to 8030/Del/2018 Shyam Kaur (Individual). SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in 386 ITR 13 and Manjunath etc would not help the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) -la .was incorrect and unjustified in holding that penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) by the AO was correct and justified even in the presence of SSA's Emerald Meadows and Manjunath judgments and also others as given before the CIT(A)…

SHYAM KAUR (INDIVIDUAL),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 8029/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh

For Appellant: Sh. B.L. Gupta, ITPFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…-15 was incorrect and unjustified in sustaining the penalty unjustifiably levied by the AO u/s 271(1 )(c) by holding that Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of ITA Nos.:- 8026 to 8030/Del/2018 Shyam Kaur (Individual). SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in 386 ITR 13 and Manjunath etc would not help the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) -la .was incorrect and unjustified in holding that penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) by the AO was correct and justified even in the presence of SSA's Emerald Meadows and Manjunath judgments and also others as given before the CIT(A)…

SHYAM KAUR (INDIVIDUAL),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 8028/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh

For Appellant: Sh. B.L. Gupta, ITPFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…-15 was incorrect and unjustified in sustaining the penalty unjustifiably levied by the AO u/s 271(1 )(c) by holding that Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of ITA Nos.:- 8026 to 8030/Del/2018 Shyam Kaur (Individual). SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in 386 ITR 13 and Manjunath etc would not help the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) -la .was incorrect and unjustified in holding that penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) by the AO was correct and justified even in the presence of SSA's Emerald Meadows and Manjunath judgments and also others as given before the CIT(A)…

SHYAM KAUR (INDIVIDUAL),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 8027/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh

For Appellant: Sh. B.L. Gupta, ITPFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…-15 was incorrect and unjustified in sustaining the penalty unjustifiably levied by the AO u/s 271(1 )(c) by holding that Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of ITA Nos.:- 8026 to 8030/Del/2018 Shyam Kaur (Individual). SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in 386 ITR 13 and Manjunath etc would not help the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) -la .was incorrect and unjustified in holding that penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) by the AO was correct and justified even in the presence of SSA's Emerald Meadows and Manjunath judgments and also others as given before the CIT(A)…

SHYAM KAUR (INDIVIDUAL),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 8026/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh

For Appellant: Sh. B.L. Gupta, ITPFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…-15 was incorrect and unjustified in sustaining the penalty unjustifiably levied by the AO u/s 271(1 )(c) by holding that Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of ITA Nos.:- 8026 to 8030/Del/2018 Shyam Kaur (Individual). SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in 386 ITR 13 and Manjunath etc would not help the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the CIT(A) -la .was incorrect and unjustified in holding that penalty levied u/s 271(l)(c) by the AO was correct and justified even in the presence of SSA's Emerald Meadows and Manjunath judgments and also others as given before the CIT(A)…

DEVENDRA NARENDRABHAI THAKKER,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 762/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 274Section 54ESection 54G

…culars of your income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income....................... Devendra Narendrabhai Thakker vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2011-12 While issuing notice for penalty AO has to apply mind for specific default. (S.C.) SSA's Emerald Meadows 386 ITR 13 (Mumbai (TAT) Meherjee Cassinath Holding P. Ltd. ITAT online 11- 05-2017 Without prejudice to above Facts Return of Income was filed disclosing full details of capital gains vis-a- vis claim made u/s 54-G. Original order u/s 143(3) dated 30-01-2014 was passed after due verification of case by two different officers, in reference to claim u/s 54-…

SAVITA SOMCHAND SHAH,THANE vs. ASST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN

ITA 4197/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr. Anupama Singla, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA No.4197/M/2016 Savita Somchand Shah Assessment Year 2009-10 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “जी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी डी.ट". गरा"सया,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4197/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Savita Somchand Shah Assistant Commissioner of 501, Sita Vihar Building Income Tax बनाम/ A Wing Circle-1 Near Damani Estate Kalyan Vs. Agra Road Thane (W) Distt. Thane "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. ACMPS-3675-B (अपीलाथ" /Appella…

WINNER SPORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR

ITA 3458/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: M.C.Omi Nigshen, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

…ITA No.3458/M/2016 Planet Traders Limited Assessment Year 2009-10 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एच” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी डी.ट". गरा"सया,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3458/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Planets Traders Limited Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) (earlier known as Winner Sports Ltd) Jaipur CIN : U51909MH2007PLC238764) Knowledge House बनाम/ Shyam Nagar Vs. Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Jogeshwari (E) Mumbai 400 060 "थायी ले…

ANIL KUMAR SUREKHA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3864/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3861 To 3864/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 & 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Anil Kumar Surekha Assistant Commissioner Of C-1901, Chaitanya Tower Income Tax Circle 3(2) बनाम/ Appasaheb Marathe Marg (Erstwhile Acit Cc 18 & 19) Prabhadevi 402, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Mumbai – 400 025 M.K.Road Mumbai -400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ajgps-8652-M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3856 To 3860/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2010-11) Smt. Nisha Anil Surekha Assistant Commissioner Of C-1901, Chaitanya Tower Income Tax Circle 3(2) बनाम/ Appasaheb Marathe Marg (Erstwhile Acit Cc 18 & 19) Prabhadevi 402, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Mumbai – 400 025 M.K.Road Mumbai -400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Cafps-8308-J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dilip V.Lakhani, Ld. Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.Ravikiran, Ld. Dr Shri Anil Kumar Surekha & Smt. Nisha Anil Surekha Assessment Year 2006-07 To 2010-11 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 06/04/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06 /04/2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Dilip V.Lakhani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K.Ravikiran, Ld. DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA No.3856 TO 3864/M/2015 Shri Anil Kumar Surekha & Smt. Nisha Anil Surekha Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2010-11 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “आई” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी डी.ट". गरा"सया,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3861 to 3864/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 & 2008-09 to 2010-11) Shri Anil Kumar Surekha Assistant Commissioner of C-1901, Chaitanya Tower Income Tax Circle 3(2) बनाम/ Appasaheb Marathe Marg (Erstwhile ACIT CC 18 & 19) Prabhadevi…

ANIL KUMAR SUREKHA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3863/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3861 To 3864/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 & 2008-09 To 2010-11) Shri Anil Kumar Surekha Assistant Commissioner Of C-1901, Chaitanya Tower Income Tax Circle 3(2) बनाम/ Appasaheb Marathe Marg (Erstwhile Acit Cc 18 & 19) Prabhadevi 402, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Mumbai – 400 025 M.K.Road Mumbai -400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ajgps-8652-M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3856 To 3860/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 To 2010-11) Smt. Nisha Anil Surekha Assistant Commissioner Of C-1901, Chaitanya Tower Income Tax Circle 3(2) बनाम/ Appasaheb Marathe Marg (Erstwhile Acit Cc 18 & 19) Prabhadevi 402, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Mumbai – 400 025 M.K.Road Mumbai -400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Cafps-8308-J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dilip V.Lakhani, Ld. Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.Ravikiran, Ld. Dr Shri Anil Kumar Surekha & Smt. Nisha Anil Surekha Assessment Year 2006-07 To 2010-11 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 06/04/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 06 /04/2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Dilip V.Lakhani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K.Ravikiran, Ld. DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA No.3856 TO 3864/M/2015 Shri Anil Kumar Surekha & Smt. Nisha Anil Surekha Assessment Year 2006-07 to 2010-11 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “आई” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी डी.ट". गरा"सया,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3861 to 3864/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 & 2008-09 to 2010-11) Shri Anil Kumar Surekha Assistant Commissioner of C-1901, Chaitanya Tower Income Tax Circle 3(2) बनाम/ Appasaheb Marathe Marg (Erstwhile ACIT CC 18 & 19) Prabhadevi…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (386 ITR 13) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax