How many judgments cite Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi?

62 judgments on BharatTax cite Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi (398 ITR 88), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 274, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 145(3).

Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi

398 ITR 88High Court2017#1838 most cited

What is Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi authority for?

A penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) must unambiguously specify the exact charge—either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, but not both interchangeably. Failing to strike out the irrelevant limb invalidates the notice and leads to the deletion of the penalty.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Baisetty Revathi · 398 ITR 88 · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty notice · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · ambiguous notice · invalid notice · striking irrelevant limb · specific charge · penalty deletion · Andhra Pradesh High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 274 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250 Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Pr.CIT v. Baisetty Revathi

Pact Securities and Financial Services Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-16(3), Hyderabad

In the results, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1559/HYD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanpact Securities & Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Financial Services Ltd Tax, Circle 16(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabcp4438R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Y. RatnakarFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…alty proceedings is not known, i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This issue had come up before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi reported in 398 ITR 88 (T & A.P) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that if irrelevant portion of the notice is not struck off, such notice is not valid and the consequent penalty order is not sustainable. Therefore, considering the legal question involved, we admit the additional grounds and adjudicate the same as under:- 5. While the learned Counsel for the asse…

ACIT 27(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Rustom Ice & Cold Storage Co., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5863/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleacit 27(3) V. M/S. Rustom Ice & Cold Storage Co., 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, C/O. Ragi Ice & Cold Storage, Vashi Railway Station Bpt Godown, 166 Sasoon Building Complex, Dock, Colaba Vashi – 400 703 Mumbai 400 005 Pan No: Aaafr 7587 D

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nchery, ITA.No. 1154 of 2014 (Bom.HC.) (b) Shri. Samson Perinchery v. ACIT in ITA.No. 4625/Mum/2013. (c) CIT v. Manjunath cotton & ginning Factory [359 ITR 565] (d) CIT v. M/s. SSA’S Emerald Meadows S.C. C.C. No. 11485/2016. (e) PCIT v. Smt. Baisetty Revathi [398 ITR 88] (f) T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [292 ITR 11] (g) M/s. Orbit enterprises v. ITO–15(2)(2) in ITA.No. 1596 & 1597/Mum/2014. (h) Jehangir HC Jehangir v. ACIT in ITA.No. 1261/Mum/2011 (i) CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya and others [216 ITR 660] (j) M/s. M. Waseeq Cafetaria v. ITO in ITA.No. 08/PUN/2014 3. Ld.DR however placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Ju…