Subramania Iyer v. Union of India

97 ITR 228High Court1974#7262 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Subramania Iyer v. Union of India

HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 644/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…any such prejudice has been caused to him. Attention may be invited in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tripathi v. State Bank of India, . We have perused the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Subramania Iyer v. Union of India [1974] 97 ITR 228, on which the assessee has relied. With great respect, we are unable to agree that the mere non-striking off of the inappropriate portions in a notice renders the notice automatically invalid unless in a further enquiry in the matter it is shown that by reason of the notice not properly conveying the gist of the offence to the assessee, prejudice…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. HINDUPUR BIO-ENERGY PVT. LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, and the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1243/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Hindupur Bio-Energy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Hindupur Bio-Energy Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch0124J. (Appellant) (Respondent / Cross-Appellant) Assessee By: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri L.V. Bhaskara Reddy
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…any such prejudice has been caused to him. Attention may be invited in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tripathi v. State Bank of India, . We have perused the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Subramania Iyer v. Union of India [1974] 97 ITR 228, on which the assessee has relied. With great respect, we are unable to agree that the mere non-striking off of the inappropriate portions in a notice renders the notice automatically invalid unless in a further enquiry in the matter it is shown that by reason of the notice not properly conveying the gist of the offence to the assessee, prejudice…

SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 8/GTY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)

…d to quash the notice and restored the matter to the competent authority. It is, therefore, evident that this decision is entirely different from the facts of the present appeal. Similarly, in the case of N.N Subramania Iyer vs. UOI and Anr [1974] reported in 97 ITR 228 (Ker.) and also relied upon by the appellant, the matter which has some resemblance to the issue at hand has been discussed in para (5) of the aforesaid order which is reproduced below for ready reference: "5. The penalty notice, exhibit P-2, is illegal on the face of it. It is in a printed form, which comprehends all possible grounds on which a p…

SHRI BIMAL PAUL,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/GTY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)

…d to quash the notice and restored the matter to the competent authority. It is, therefore, evident that this decision is entirely different from the facts of the present appeal. Similarly, in the case of N.N Subramania Iyer vs. UOI and Anr [1974] reported in 97 ITR 228 (Ker.) and also relied upon by the appellant, the matter which has some resemblance to the issue at hand has been discussed in para (5) of the aforesaid order which is reproduced below for ready reference: "5. The penalty notice, exhibit P-2, is illegal on the face of it. It is in a printed form, which comprehends all possible grounds on which a p…

BHASKARA ENTERPRISES,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1512/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…sue of legality of the notice wherein inappropriate portions of the notice issued under section 274 of the Act were not struck off. In that case, the Tribunal followed the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in N.N. Subramania Iyer vs. Union of India [1974] 97 ITR 228 and accepted the contention of the assessee that the penalty notice issued by the ITO was invalid inasmuch as the ITO did not strike out inappropriate portions of the notice. The Tribunal accordingly held that the penalty notice issued by the ITO suffered from a serious infirmity of vagueness and ambiguity, and quashed the penalty order passed by…

VINOD AERUKALA ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 235/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 217(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…any such prejudice has been caused to him. Attention may be invited in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tripathi v. State Bank of India, . We have perused the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Subramania Iyer v. Union of India [1974] 97 ITR 228, on which the assessee has relied. With great respect, we are unable to agree that the mere non-striking off of the inappropriate portions in a notice renders the notice automatically invalid unless in a further enquiry in the matter it is shown that by reason of the notice not properly conveying the gist of the offence to the assessee, prejudice…

MOOLA PADMAJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are dismissed

ITA 234/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Moola Padmaja Vs. Acit,Cc-3(2) 8-1-293/A/74/A 7Th Floor Dwaraka Nagar Colony Aaykar Bhawan Narayanamma Engineering Basheer Bagh College, Raidurg Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 008 Pan : Aoipp2482B Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vinod Aerakula Vs Acit,Cc-3(2) B-109, Western Plaza 7Th Floor Hussain Shahwali Darha Aaykar Bhawan Shaikpet, Hyderabad Basheer Bagh Telangana Hyderabad-500 004 Pan : Aoopa5855R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.02.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Respective Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2022 & 27.3.2022 Respectively Of The Learned Cit(A) (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2012-13. Since Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Respective Assessees, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 217(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…any such prejudice has been caused to him. Attention may be invited in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tripathi v. State Bank of India, . We have perused the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Subramania Iyer v. Union of India [1974] 97 ITR 228, on which the assessee has relied. With great respect, we are unable to agree that the mere non-striking off of the inappropriate portions in a notice renders the notice automatically invalid unless in a further enquiry in the matter it is shown that by reason of the notice not properly conveying the gist of the offence to the assessee, prejudice…

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD,JHANSI vs. DCIT -2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 193/AGR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…nath Holdings P. Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.2555/Mum/2012. (xiv) “Rajeev Kumar Gupta vs. CIT”, 123 ITR 907, Allahabad, (HC). I.T.A No. 192/Agra/2017 7 & ITA No.193/Agra/2017 (xv) “Ajay Kumar vs. ITO”, ITA No. 53/Agra/2015. (xvi) “N.N. Subramania Iyer vs. UOI”, 97 ITR 228 (Ker). 9. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on: “CIT vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar”, 44 ITR 739 (SC). (a) “Mak Data (P) Ltd. vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal (b) No.9772/2013 (SC). “Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT”, (c) in ITA No.2078/Ahd/2006 & 2526/Ahd/206. “M/s K.P. Madhusudan vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal (d) No. 6465/2000 (SC). “CIT vs. Zoom Communi…

SH. VIKAS,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 849/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Vikas, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (4), Village Ghat, P.O. Pachli Khurd, New Delhi. Meerut (U.P.)

Section 1Section 1BSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…his submission that the specific objection was raised before the CIT (A) and reliance was placed upon the position of law as addressed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of New Soraphahia Engineering Company vs. CIT – (2006) 282 ITR 642; N.M. Subramanium – 97 ITR 228; D.M. Manasvi vs. CIT – 86 ITR 553 (SC); Ranjan & Company – 291 ITR 340 (Delhi); Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. – (1998) 246 ITR 568; Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in CIT-II vs. Praveen B. Gada (HUF) – 2012) 211 Taxman 166 (M.P.) dated 17.02.2011; and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Co…

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 70/AGR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…Davare vs. ITA No. 2187/Mum/2014. (xiii)“Meherjee Cassinath Holdings P. Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.2555/Mum/2012. (xiv) “Rajeev Kumar Gupta vs. CIT”, 123 ITR 907, (Allahabad). (xv) “Ajay Kumar vs. ITO”, ITA No. 53/Agra/2015. (xvi) “N.N. Subramania Iyer vs. UOI”, 97 ITR 228 (Ker). I.T.A No. 70/Agra/2017 9 (xvii) “Uttam Value Steels Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.3622 to 3625/Mum/2016. (xviii) “Muninaga Reddy Vs. ACIT”, 396 ITR 398 (Karn). (xix) “Orbit Enterprises Vs. ITO”, ITA Nos. 1596 & 1597/Mum/2014, Order dated 01.09.2017. 9. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on: “CIT vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar”, 44 ITR 739 (SC). (a) “Sa…

MS/ BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES,AGRA vs. THE A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

ITA 378/AGR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Mar 2018AY 2008-09
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

…requirements of s. 274. In “Ajay Kumar vs. ITO”, ITA No. 53/Agra/2015. vide order 48. dated 19.05.2017deleted penalty under identical circumstances. Copy of the Order passed by the Bench is enclosed herewith. (APB-196- 203). In “N.N. SubramaniaIyer vs. UOI”, 97 ITR 228 (Ker). "The 49. penalty notice, Exhibit P-2, is illegal on the face of it. It is in a printed form, which comprehends all possible grounds on which a penalty can be imposed under section 18(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. The notice has not struck off any one of those grounds, and there is no indication for what contravention the petitioner was called u…

B.J. HOTELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 360/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

…d when it was held that there was no suppression of income by the assessee. Thus, it would be seen that the ratio of that decision cannot be applied to this case. 12. The last decision relied upon is the case of N. N. Subramania Iyer v. Union of India [1974] 97 ITR 228 (Ker). The following passage from the said decision would demonstrate how entirely different the background of that case was and, therefore, the ratio of that decision also could not be applied (at page 231) : "The penalty notice, exhibit P-2, is illegal on the face of it. It is in a printed form, which comprehends all possible grounds on which a…

SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 118/AGR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

…vs. ACIT”, ITA No. 2187/Mum/2014. (xiii)“Meherjee Cassinath Holdings P. Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.2555/Mum/2012. (xiv) “Rajeev Kumar Gupta vs. CIT”, 123 ITR 907, (Allahabad). (xv) “Ajay Kumar vs. ITO”, ITA No. 53/Agra/2015. (xvi) “N.N. Subramania Iyer vs. UOI”, 97 ITR 228 (Ker). (xvii) “Uttam Value Steels Ltd. vs. ACIT”, ITA No.3622 to 3625/Mum/2016. (xviii) “Muninaga Reddy Vs. ACIT”, 396 ITR 398 (Karn). (xix) “Orbit Enterprises Vs. ITO”, ITA Nos. 1596 & 1597/Mum/2014, Order dated 01.09.2017. 9. Per contra, the ld. DR has relied on: “CIT vs. S.V. Angidi Chettiar”, 44 ITR 739 (SC). (a) “Sanjay Kumar & Ajay Kumar vs.…

MEGAYIELDS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2581/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Meghayields D C I T – 17(2) C/O. Prafullkumar Kenia 217, Piramal Chambers 698/1, Kanti Villa Vs. 2Nd Floor, Lalbaug Dr. Dinshaw Master Road Mumbai 400013 Dadar, Mumbai 400014 Pan – Aahfm8449G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhirandra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43(5)Section 73

…that there was no suppression of income by the assessee. Thus, it would be seen that the ratio of that decision cannot be applied to this case. 8 M/s. Meghayields 12. The last decision relied upon is the case of N. N. Subramania Iyer v. Union of India [1974] 97 ITR 228 (Ker). The following passage from the said decision would demonstrate how entirely different the background of that case was and, therefore, the ratio of that decision also could not be applied (at page 231) : "The penalty notice, exhibit P-2, is illegal on the face of it. It is in a printed form, which comprehends all possible grounds on which a…

PRINCE CONSULTANCY P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 13(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 6068/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ramlal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin S. ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 45ESection 54E

…ed when it was held that there was no suppression of income by the assessee. Thus, it would be seen that the ratio of that decision cannot be applied to this case. 12. The last decision relied upon is the case of N. N. Subramania Iyer v. Union of India [1974] 97 ITR 228 (Ker). The following passage from the said decision would demonstrate how entirely different the background of that case was and, therefore, the ratio of that decision also could not be applied (at page 231) : "The penalty notice, exhibit P-2, is illegal on the face of it. It is in a printed form, which comprehends all possible grounds on which a…

DR SARITA MILIND DAVARE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 40, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2187/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ramlal Negi (Jm) I.T.A. No. 2187/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d when it was held that there was no suppression of income by the assessee. Thus, it would be seen that the ratio of that decision cannot be applied to this case. 12. The last decision relied upon is the case of N. N. Subramania Iyer v. Union of India [1974] 97 ITR 228 (Ker). The following passage from the said decision would demonstrate how entirely different the background of that case was and, therefore, the ratio of that decision also could not be applied (at page 231) : "The penalty notice, exhibit P-2, is illegal on the face of it. It is in a printed form, which comprehends all possible grounds on which a…