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.

How many judgments cite Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT?

247 judgments on BharatTax cite Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT (93 Taxmann.com 250), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 274, Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 153A, Section 139(1).

Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT (93 Taxmann.com 250)

Sreenavaladian Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Centralcircle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1155/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ther terminology to denote concealment as is an accepted terminology under the Act. ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 7.2 The ld.Senior DR further submitted that decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd Vs. ACIT, reported in 403 ITR 407 clearly applies to the case of the assessee. As in this reported case, the appellant was fully aware of its deed and concealed its real income for nearly six years, as a loan transaction, till it was revealed by means of physical survey conducted by the Department in the year 2020. On Department exposing such concealment and consequent to reopeni…

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Cent Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1154/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ther terminology to denote concealment as is an accepted terminology under the Act. ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 7.2 The ld.Senior DR further submitted that decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd Vs. ACIT, reported in 403 ITR 407 clearly applies to the case of the assessee. As in this reported case, the appellant was fully aware of its deed and concealed its real income for nearly six years, as a loan transaction, till it was revealed by means of physical survey conducted by the Department in the year 2020. On Department exposing such concealment and consequent to reopeni…

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

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

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…as was questioned by the Bench during hearing. To say, therefore, that the charge is vague, is ludicrous. Reference in this context may be made to the decision in T.A. Abdul Khadar v. CWT [2008] 296 ITR 20 (Ker); and Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 403 ITR 407 (Mad) – the facts of which be noted. Much less being raised in good faith and for bona fide reasons, we find the said legal ground as, rather, an abuse of the process of law. We therefore decline admission, relying thereon, as indeed on Jute Corp. of India v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC). 6.7 We may, nevertheless, without prejudice, also discuss…

Vijayratna Veera Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 102/VIZ/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Y. Surya Chandra Rao, ARFor Respondent: Sri Shri Madhukar Aves

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

…Smt. Baisetty Revathi in I.T.T.A No. 684 of 2016, dated 13/07/2017. Further, the Ld. 5 AR also in his written submissions distinguished the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Co. Circle-VI(4), Chennai reported in [2018] 403 ITR 407 (Madras). The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that since the Ld. AO did not strike off the inappropriate limb in the notice issued to the assessee, the penalty notice issued shall be treated as invalid and the consequent order of penalty is not valid in law. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has also objected before the Ld. AO during the p…

Smt.Sushma Tandon, Delhi vs. ITO, WD- 45(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/KOL/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)(ii)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 663/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Sushma Tandon Income Tax Officer, Ward- 45(2), B-56, II Floor Vs Kolkata Ashok Vihar, Phase-1 Delhi - 110052 [PAN: ACYPT6306N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 06/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/09/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE…

Maruti Trading Co, Jagaatsinghpur vs. ITO Ward Paradeep, Paradeep

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 213/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Maruti Trading Co., Maruti Trading Co., Panisalia, Vs. Ito, Ward, Paradeep. Ito, Ward, Paradeep. Jagatsinghpur. Jagatsinghpur. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aalfm 3677 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/0 /08/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK , CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Maruti Trading Co., Maruti Trading Co., Panisalia, Vs. ITO, Ward, Paradeep. ITO, Ward, Paradeep. Jagatsinghpur. Jagatsinghpur. PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.AALFM 3677 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 16/08 8/2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16/0 /08/2…

V.S.J Marketing Private Limited, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle - 1, Salem

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 574/CHNY/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.574/Chny/2022 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. V.S.J. Marketing Private Limited Dcit बनाम 13/145, Ganapathy Nagar, Circle-1, / Vs. Ganapathypalayam, Salem-636 030. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccv-5410-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy (Cit)-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy (CIT)-Ld.DR

Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)

…concealment of income. 3.3 During appellate proceedings, the assessee assailed the penalty on the ground that the notice was vague and an invalid notice. The Ld. CIT(A), applying the ratio of decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Sundaram Finance Ltd. (403 ITR 407) in preference to the decision in Babuji Jacob (430 lTR 259), confirmed the impugned penalty against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. From the fact, it emerges that the assessee has remained non- cooperative during assessment proceedings as well as during penalty proceeding. The assessment was fr…

Unitech Reality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2911/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.2911/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Unitech Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Basement , 6, Circle - 27(1), Community Centre, Saket New Delhi Delhi-110017 New Delhi Pan : Aaacr4290E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ted before him of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows in CC dated 05.8.2016 [2016]73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) and preferred to rely judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Sundaram Finlease Ltd. vs. ACIT 403 ITR 407. 5.1 Ld. DR however, defended the orders of Ld. Tax Authorities below. 6. Appreciating the matter on record, it comes up that there is no dispute to the fact that Ld. AO had not made any enquiry to discredit the claim of loss and had accepted the plea of bargain of the assessee to be assessed at Nil income instead of declared loss subject to the…

B.H.Kothari, Rep by L/H Nina B.Kothari, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3543/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Estate Of (Late) Shri B.H. The Dcit, Kothari, V. Corporate Circle 4(2), Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Nina Chennai – 34. Kothari, No.18, Kothari Bagh, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Agjpk 7393K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 3542 & 3543/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Estate of (Late) Shri B.H. The DCIT, Kothari, v. Corporate Circle 4(2), Rep. by Legal Heir Smt. Nina Chennai – 34. Kothari, No.18, Kothari Bagh, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AGJPK 7393K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appel…

B.H.Kothari, Rep by L/H Nina B.Kothari, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3542/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3542 & 3543/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Estate Of (Late) Shri B.H. The Dcit, Kothari, V. Corporate Circle 4(2), Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Nina Chennai – 34. Kothari, No.18, Kothari Bagh, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Agjpk 7393K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 3542 & 3543/CHNY/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Estate of (Late) Shri B.H. The DCIT, Kothari, v. Corporate Circle 4(2), Rep. by Legal Heir Smt. Nina Chennai – 34. Kothari, No.18, Kothari Bagh, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AGJPK 7393K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appel…