Maharaj Garage & Company v. CIT

400 ITR 292High Court2018#4521 most cited

What is Maharaj Garage & Company v. CIT authority for?

A penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 does not require a specific charge or explanation of the penalty quantum, as long as the assessee is provided with the assessment order findings. The opportunity of being heard under Section 274 cannot be stretched to framing a specific charge.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Maharaj Garage & Company v. CIT · section 271(1)(c) · section 274 · penalty proceedings · reasonable opportunity of being heard · specific charge · notice of penalty · assessment order findings

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 271AABSection 274

Issues it is cited on

section 274levy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 27business

Judgments citing Maharaj Garage & Company v. CIT

Smt. Manjeet Kaur Sran, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2641/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…been prescribed for the notice. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) as given in the case of M/s. Maharaj Garage & Company, vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Reference No. 21 of 2008 [2018] 400 ITR 292 (Bombay) “The requirement of Section 274 of the Income Tax Act for granting reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter cannot be stretched to the extent of framing a specific charge or asking the assessee an explanation in respect of the quantum of penalty proposed to be imposed, as has been urged. The assessee was supplied with the fin…

Mesers Malwa Motors, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 131/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…751 (Pat); CIT v. Chandulal [1985] 152 ITR 238 (AP); CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya & Ors. [1995] 216 ITR 660 (Bom), and recently 5 ITA Nos. 131/Asr/2018 (AY 2012-13) Malwa Motors v. ITO again by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Maharaj Garage & Co. v. CIT [2018] 400 ITR 292 (Bom), to a unanimous verdict, i.e., of it being of no consequence; the satisfaction by the assessing authority at the time of initiation of penalty being even otherwise preliminary and, further, prima facie, i.e., prior to the examination of the explanation by the assesseee in the penalty proceedings, only upon which it would stand to be determi…

Shri H.K. Gandotra, Gurgaon vs. The Inocme-Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98 H. K. Gandotra, r/o 733, vs. Income Tax Officer, Prem Nagar, New Plots, Ward-2(1), Jammu Jammu (presently, F-2555, Ansal Palam Vihar, Gurgaon) [PAN: ACBPG 1745P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.) Date of Hearing: 02.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 28.06.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (…

Fremantle India Television Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhfremantle India Television Acit -16(1), Productions Pvt. Ltd., 406, Mumbai. Morya Landmark-Ii, Of New Link Road, Oshiwara, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aaacf0436A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri M.P. Lohia With Shri Heman Chandariya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Mukundraj Chate (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia with Shri Heman Chandariya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Mukundraj Chate (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271ASection 273Section 274Section 92D

…otice. The notice is not mandatory, when the assessee has fully participated and contested the proceeding. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Maharaj Garage & Co. vs. CIT [2017 ] 400 ITR 292 (Bom). 11. In the rejoinder submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the decision of Maharaj Garage & Co. vs. CIT (supra) has been distinguished by Tribunal in ITA No. 1399/Mum/2016 dated 19.01.2018 in Indrani Sunil Pillai vs. ACIT, wherein it was held that the observation of Hon’ble High Court appears to be in context of quantum pen…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6247/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Kaushlya (1995) 2016 ITR 660 ,decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Maharaj Garage & Co. v. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 292(Bom.) , decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 Trishul Enterprises v. ACIT in ITA no. 384 & 385/Mum/2014 order dated 01.02.2017 ( wherein one of us namely learned Judicial Member was part of the Division Bench who pronounced the order) and decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Shri Mahesh M. Gandhi v. ACIT…

Punjab Sind Dairy Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 6246/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिाम/ Punjab Sind Dairy Product Acit Central Circle- P. Ltd., 33,Room No. 32(3), Ag-2 Cama Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Walbhatt Road, Mumbai-400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400063 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aadcp5419Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (Ar) Revenue By: Shri. D.G Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 6246 & 6247/Mum/2017, Are Directed Against Two Separate Appellate Orders Both Dated 22.08.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It- 123/2012-13 & Cit(A)-53/Dccc-5(2)/It-124/2012-13 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2006-07 & 2007- 08 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Two Separate Penalty Orders Both Dated 29.03.2012 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C)

For Appellant: Shri. K.K. Lalkaka (AR)For Respondent: Shri. D.G Pansari (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Kaushlya (1995) 2016 ITR 660 ,decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Maharaj Garage & Co. v. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 292(Bom.) , decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of I.T.A. No.6246 & 6247/Mum/2017 Trishul Enterprises v. ACIT in ITA no. 384 & 385/Mum/2014 order dated 01.02.2017 ( wherein one of us namely learned Judicial Member was part of the Division Bench who pronounced the order) and decision of Mumbai-tribunal in the case of Shri Mahesh M. Gandhi v. ACIT…