CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 248Supreme Court of India2016#48 most cited

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

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

953

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows · section 274 · section 271(1)(c) · penalty notice validity · specific charge penalty · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars of income · vitiates penalty proceedings · Manjunatha Cotton

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited, Guntur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.233/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Guntur-522002. Income Tax, Pan: Aaccr6125N Circle-2(1), Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(2)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री के नरधिम्हाचारी, न्याधयक िदस्य एिं श्री एि बालाकृष्णन, लेखा िदस्य के िमक्ष BEFORE SHRIK NARASIMHA CHARY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.233/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Raghuram Hume Pipes Private Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Guntur-522002. Income Tax, PAN: AACCR6125N Circle-2(1), Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, CA प्रत्यधथी की…

Makashood Asharaf, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. The Income Tax Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Makashood Asharaf, 98-Moh. The Income Tax Officer, Seikh Sarain, Kheri Town, Distt.- Vs. Range-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri- Lakhimpur Kheri-1 (U.P.) 1 Pan:Bkwpa9250R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.07.2022 Upholding The Penalty Levied Under Section 271B By The Ito-3(4), Lakhimpur-1 Vide His Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2016-17 Makashood Asharaf, 98-Moh. The Income Tax Officer, Seikh Sarain, Kheri Town, Distt.- vs. Range-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri- Lakhimpur Kheri-1 (U.P.) 1 PAN:BKWPA9250R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR Date of hearing: 29.08.2024 Date of pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R PER SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed against the order of the ld.…