Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT

93 Taxmann.com 250High Court2018#352 most cited

What is Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is not invalid merely because it fails to strike off the irrelevant limb (concealment or inaccurate particulars) or specify the exact charge. Such a notice remains valid if the assessee understood the charge, was given adequate opportunity to respond, and failed to demonstrate any prejudice.

247

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT · Section 274 · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty notice validity · non-striking off limbs · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · no prejudice · Section 292B · Madras High Court

Also reported as

403 ITR 407

Sections most often in play

Section 274Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 139(1)Section 14ASection 270A

Issues it is cited on

section 274(1)section 43b(f)section 2(45)section 36(l)(iii)section 211section 271(l)section 32(1)(iia)house property incomesection 140section 271(l)(c)full and true disclosurefurnishing inaccurate particulars of income

Judgments citing Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Sam India Builtwell (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1840/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH ’G’: NEW DELHI BENCH : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND AND AND , JUDICIAL MEMBER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No ITA Nos.1840/Del/2015 1840/Del/20…

Binaguri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2160/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Binaguri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Smt. Puja Somani, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Binaguri Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata 238A, A.J.C. Bose Road, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCB 1008 P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by : Smt. Puja Somani, FCA Revenue by : Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 04/04/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 26/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2…

Nathmal Saraf Charity Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1)(Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2120/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Nathmal Saraf Charity Trust Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1)(Exemption), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Harshbardhan Bhardwaj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Nathmal Saraf Charity Trust Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(Exemption), Kolkata C/o, V.N. Purohit & Co. Chartered Accountants, Diamond Chambers, Unit-III, 4th Floor, Suit No. 4G, 4, Chowringhee Lane, Kolkata- 700016 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAATN 1732 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Harshbardhan Bhardwaj, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 04/04/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 26/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E…

M/S. Ochoa Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4967/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Manu Monga, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e as the assessee has understood the purport and import of the notice under section 6 ITA No.4967/Del./2016 274 read with section 271 of the Act and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), in which SLP has also been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case cited as Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) and also relied upon the judgment of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya – 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) & Trimurti Engineering Works vs. ITO – (2012) 138 ITD 189 (Del.). Ld. DR also filed written submission which…

Moving Picture Company India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2896/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sood, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR
Section 143Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…o prejudice to the assessee as the assessee has understood the purport and import of the notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), in which SLP has also been 10 ITA No.2896/Del./2015 dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case cited as Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) and also relied upon the judgment of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya – 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) & Trimurti Engineering Works vs. ITO – (2012) 138 ITD 189 (Del.). 16. Hon’ble Mad…

Neha Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-18(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the 17

ITA 5656/DEL/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. R.K Panda

Section 148Section 254Section 271Section 274Section 68

…by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and relied on the order 4 of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. 7. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 403 ITR 407, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where notice did not show nature of default, it was a question of fact. The assessee had understood the purport and import of notice and hence no prejudice was caused to the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court in this decision has considered the decision of the Hon’ble Karn…

Neha Toka Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-18(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the 17

ITA 5655/DEL/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. R.K Panda

Section 148Section 254Section 271Section 274Section 68

…by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and relied on the order 4 of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. 7. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 403 ITR 407, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where notice did not show nature of default, it was a question of fact. The assessee had understood the purport and import of notice and hence no prejudice was caused to the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court in this decision has considered the decision of the Hon’ble Karn…

Babita Khurana, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4707/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 274Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.4707/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Smt. Babita Khurana, The DCIT, B-7/100, Safdarjung vs. Central Circle, Enclave Extn., New Delhi. Noida. PAN AJEPK0089L (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg & Shri Akarsh Garg, For Assessee : Advocates. For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2019 ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Learned CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur, Dated 25th April, 2018, for the assessment ye…

Lodhi Property Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1232/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…no prejudice to the assessee as the assessee has understood the purport and import of the notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), in which SLP has also been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case cited as Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) and also relied upon the judgment of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya – 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) & Trimurti Engineering Works vs. ITO – (2012) 138 ITD 189 (Del.). 14. Hon’ble Madras High Court in Sundara…

Jagdamba Prasad Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1834/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

…t the assessee did not raise the plea before the authorities below that there is a defect in the notice, therefore, additional ground cannot be raised at this stage and relied upon judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Sundram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT 403 ITR 407 which is confirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP reported in 99 taxmann.com 152. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is admitted fact that the AO before levy of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act issued show cause notice to the assessee dated 31/12/2013, copy of which is filed at page…

M/S Mann & Hummel Filter Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 798/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)(Bengaluru)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…erein are applied. The High Court at Bombay was, therefore, in error in the view that it took and the Division Bench in the impugned judgment was right.” 17. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. 403 ITR 407(Mad) wherein the Hon’ble Madras High Court did not follow the ruling of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra). He also brought to our notice that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Page 12 of 21 Vs. State Bank of Mysore in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s) 34294/2018 on 29.10.2018 has admitted SL…

Crew Bos Products Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Faridabad

ITA 5236/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Beg, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…in SLP filed by revenue, same was liable to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2] [In favour of assessee]” 15. The ld. DR for the Revenue by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in case cited as Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT – (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras) contended that when the assessee has understood the purport and 11 ITA No.5235 & 5236/Del./2016 import of notice, no prejudice was caused to the assessee. However, when we peruse para 16 of the judgment in Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), it is categorically recorded therein that, “We have perused the notices and we find that th…

Crew Bos Products Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Faridabad

ITA 5235/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Beg, Senior DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…in SLP filed by revenue, same was liable to be dismissed - Held, yes [Para 2] [In favour of assessee]” 15. The ld. DR for the Revenue by relying upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in case cited as Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT – (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras) contended that when the assessee has understood the purport and 11 ITA No.5235 & 5236/Del./2016 import of notice, no prejudice was caused to the assessee. However, when we peruse para 16 of the judgment in Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), it is categorically recorded therein that, “We have perused the notices and we find that th…

Shri Anil Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2065/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Anil Tyagi, Vs. Ito, 97/Sa, Village Dundahera, Ward-1(1), Nh-24, Ghaziabad (Up), Ghaziabad Pan: Acqpt1968G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…n CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning 359 ITR 565 as well as CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows 73 Taxmann.com 248. 6. The ld DR vehemently submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the revenue by the decision of the Sundaram Finance Ltd Vs. ACIT 403 ITR 407 (Mad) where the decisions cited by the assessee are considered. Even on the merits, the ld AR submitted that there is no concealment of particulars but difference of opinion only. He further stated that merely non-filing of appeal and acceptance of the addition does not result into penalty. On merits , ld DR submitted that the assessee has sold c…

Ykm Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2174/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(2)

…ald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 248 as well as various decisions of the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly supported the order of the CIT(A). Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT 403 ITR 407 wherein it is held that where notice did not show nature of default, it was a question of fact. The assessee had understood the purport and import of notice and hence no prejudice was caused to the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court in the above decision has considered the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunat…

Sh. Swami Sharan Garg, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 4549/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 4Section 68

…e issued by the AO u/s 274 of the Act is not standalone document which is based on assessment order; that the notice has been issued in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and relied upon the cases of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT – (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya – (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bombay), Trimurti Engineering Works – 25 taxmann.com 363, Hybrid Rice International Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – ITA No.285/Del/2007, Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. DCIT - (2017) 166 ITD 113 (Mumbai), DCIT vs. Shahrukh Khan – (2018) 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai-Trib.), Dhanraj Mills…

Shri Sanjay Mittra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5206/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Sanjay Mittra, Dcit, Central Circle- 26, G-25, Green Park, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…ficer and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) should be cancelled. 11. The ld. DR on the other hand strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 403 ITR 407, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where notice did not show nature of default, it was a question of fact. The assessee had understood the purport and import of notice and hence no prejudice was caused to the 5 assessee. The Hon'ble High Court while referring to this decision has considered the decision…

Anisha Khanna, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…(SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1] 5 ITA No.- 513 & 514/Del/2018 Smt. Anuradha Khanna & Ms. Anisha Khanna. 5. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] 6. Sundaram Finance Ltd v. CIT 403 ITR 407 (Mad), on the proposition that assessee had understood purport and Import of notice hence no prejudice was caused to assessee. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The AO in the assessment order, after confirming the addition u/s 68 of the IT Act for sum of Rs. 37,77,465/- noted as assessee had del…

Anuradha Khanna, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 513/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…(SC)/[2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1] 5 ITA No.- 513 & 514/Del/2018 Smt. Anuradha Khanna & Ms. Anisha Khanna. 5. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs CIT [[2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC)] 6. Sundaram Finance Ltd v. CIT 403 ITR 407 (Mad), on the proposition that assessee had understood purport and Import of notice hence no prejudice was caused to assessee. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The AO in the assessment order, after confirming the addition u/s 68 of the IT Act for sum of Rs. 37,77,465/- noted as assessee had del…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Phi Seeds (P) Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 4366/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…ted import of the notice, no prejudice was caused to the assessee and such circumstances penalty cannot be vitiated. In support of her contention she relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd versus CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 ( Madras). The Ld. DR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt Kaushlya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) and decision of the Tribunal Mumbai bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Shah Rukh Khan (2018) 93 taxmann.com 320. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record.…