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 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 366,459 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 274 Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 132 Section 153A Section 139(1)Section 14A Section 270A

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs. Scooters India Limited, Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 266/LKW/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

…I.T.A. Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Assessment Years:2002-03 to 2007-08 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019 Asstt. Year:2002-2003 to 2007-08 Dy.C.I.T., Vs. M/s Scooters India Ltd., Range-6, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow. Lucknow. PAN:AADCS7796R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.Nos.10 to 15/Lkw/2019 (in ITA Nos.265 to 270/Lkw/2019) Asstt. Year:2002-2003 to 2007-08 M/s Scooters India Ltd., Vs. Dy.C.I.T., Sarojini Nagar, Range-6, Lucknow. Lucknow. PAN:AADCS7796R (Appellant) (Respondent)…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Lucknow vs. Scooters India Limited, Lucknow

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 265/LKW/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Oct 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

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

Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai vs. Centaur Merchantile Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 324/MUM/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…and Srinivasa Pitty & Sons Vs CIT 173 FTR 306 where it was held that non striking off irrelevant portion cannot render penalty notice as invalid? 5. Whether Ld. CIT(A) is correct in cancelling penalty by following the decision of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT 403 ITR 407 (Madras) where Hon'ble Madras HC has considered the decision of SSA Emeraled Meadows and confirmed the penalty levied by department by holding that no prejudice is caused to the assessee by not striking off the irrelevant portion of penalty notice. The SLP filed by the assessee has been dismissed by Hon'ble SC ( 2018 99 Taxman.com 152)?" 4. Brie…

Ishita Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2789/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Senior DR

Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…he case. 6. Ld. DR for the Revenue to repel the queries put-forth to him relied upon various decisions viz. Vijay Aggarwal vs. DCIT 2019-TIOL-1628-ITAT-DEL, Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC), Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom.), New Holland Tractors (India) (O) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 275 CTR 291 (Delhi), Trimuti Engineering Works vs. ITO (2012) 138 ITD 189 (Delhi), Hybrid Rice International Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA No.285/Del/2007, Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. DCIT (2017) 166 ITD 113 (Mumbai)…

T vs. Logistics Services Ltd., Madurai

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

ITA 585/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 585/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Tvs Supply Chain Solutions The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Formerly Known As Tvs Vs. Income Tax, Logistics Services Limited), Corporate Circle 2, 7B, West Veli Street, Tvs Building, Madurai 625 002. Madurai 625 001. [Pan:Aacct1412E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Madurai, Dated 28.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…particulars or concealment of income. In view of the factual position, the ground raised by the assessee is devoid of any merits. Our view is duly supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. ACIT 403 ITR 407, which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [2018] 99 taxmann.com 152. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has rejected the additional substantial question of law on the reason that the assessee had at no earlier point of time pointed out the defect in the notice that the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(…

Mayar India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6766/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80G

…Co Ltd in ITA No. 475 and batch of 2019, it is submitted that the penalty cannot be sustained. 5. Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and placing on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), Ld. DR submitted that the assessee understood the purport of the notice and without raising any objection whatsoever they have participated in the penalty proceedings as well as the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the case of the assessee. She therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. We h…

Lubrizol India Pvt Ltd., Thane vs. Dy CIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6284/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 6284/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Lubrizol India Private Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of 9/3, Thane Belapur Road, Income Tax, (Ltu)-2 फनाभ/ 29Th Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400 705 Florr, Centre No.1, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aaaml0126H अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-1, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], Dated 06.08.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Ltu)-2, Mumbai (In Short Acit/ Ito/ Lubrizol India Private Limited; Ay: 11-12 Ao) For The A.Y. 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 23.02.2015 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, DR

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

…isions which have been mentioned Lubrizol India Private Limited; AY: 11-12 hereinabove at para 6.2. In respect of such reliance placed, it is stated that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT Co. Cir.Vl(4), Chennai (2018) 93 Taxmann.com 250 (Madras) in their order dated 23.04.2018 were faced with the issue of concealment of income. In that case the claim of depreciation of asset/equipment which dd not exist or which were never supplied was the issue on which penalty proceedings were initiated and Hon'ble High Court in that case held that the assessee had not only concealed pa…

Avee Medi Surgicals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5127/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadvav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT/DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…d. PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co Ltd in ITA No. 475 and batch of 2019, Ld. AR submitted that the penalty cannot be sustained. 5. Per contra, placing on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), Ld. DR submitted that the assessee understood the purport of the notice and without raising any objection whatsoever they have participated in the penalty proceedings as well as the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the case of the assessee. She therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. We h…

Mayar India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 6(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6096/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37(1)Section 40A(3)Section 43B

…ese circumstances, we proceed to decide the appeal basing on the material available on record. 5. Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and placing on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), Ld. DR submitted that the assessee understood the purport of the notice and without raising any objection whatsoever they have participated in the penalty proceedings as well as the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the case of the assessee. She therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 6. We h…

Orient Fashion Exports India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5469/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. B.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR

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

…d. PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co Ltd in ITA No. 475 and batch of 2019, Ld. AR submitted that the penalty cannot be sustained. 4. Per contra, placing on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), Ld. DR submitted that the assessee understood the purport of the notice and without raising any objection whatsoever they have participated in the penalty proceedings as well as the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the case of the assessee. She therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. We h…

M/S Sri Jyothi Medical Hall, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1049/HYD/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 May 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 1047, 1048 & 1049/HYD/2010 Assessment Years: 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/s.Sri Jyothi Medical Hall, Income Tax Officer, HYDERABAD Vs Ward No.5(2) [PAN: AAWFS0494G] HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : NONE For Revenue : Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR Date of Hearing : 23-03-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 04-05-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : These three assessee’s appeals for AYs.2002-03 to 2004- 0…

M/S Sri Jyothi Medical Hall, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1048/HYD/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 May 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

M/S Sri Jyothi Medical Hall, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1047/HYD/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 May 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

P.K.Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. Pr.CIT, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6039/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6039/Del/2017 (A.Y 2008-09) (Through Physical Hearing) P. K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit C/O. Rra Tax India, D-28, Meerut, South Extension, Part-1, New Uttar Pradesh Delhi Aadcp4270D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6039/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2008-09) (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING) P. K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT C/o. RRA Tax India, D-28, Meerut, South Extension, Part-1, New Uttar Pradesh Delhi AADCP4270D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Respondent by Sh. Mahesh Thakur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20.04.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 25/07/2017 passe…

M/S. Havells India Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6193/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6193/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Havells India Limited. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of I, Raj Narain Marg, Income Tax (L.T.U.), Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

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

…glaring discrepancy between initiation of the penalty and levy of penalty. This is a jurisdictional issue arising out of the penalty order before us. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative heavily relied on the judgment of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras) and argued that the Hon’ble High Court held that where notice did not show the nature of default, it was a question of fact. The assessee has understood purport and import of the notice, hence, no prejudice was caused to the assessee. 7. The judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Com…

M.A. Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 583/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…e. The Ld. Sr. DR relied on numerous case laws to buttress her argument that the penalty had been rightly imposed. The Ld. Sr. DR specifically relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Limited vs. ACIT reported in 403 ITR 407 (Madras) for the proposition that if the assessee has understood the purport and import of notice, no prejudice is caused by not striking off of the irrelevant limb in the penalty notice. The Ld. Sr. DR prayed for upholding of the penalty. M..A. Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the mater…

Smt. Teeja Devi Saini, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1258/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Hemang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…urn of income which has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer and thus, shows furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In support, the ld DR has relied on the High Court of Madras decision in case of Sundram Finance Ltd vs. ACIT, Channai reported in 93 Taxmann.com 250(Mad) and the Bombay High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya & others reported in 216 ITR 660(Bom). 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In the instance case, we find that the penalty proceedings have been initiated during the course of assessment proceedings for concealing the…

Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, Ajmer vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the M.A. of the Department is dismissed

ITA 54/JPR/2019[2013-14 (26 Q, 4TH QTR.)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2020

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Pal (DCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Chand Bangur 2. The Revenue in the Misc. Application has alleged the mistake in the impugned order as under:- “In this regard, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Madras High Court while deciding the appeal in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2018] 403 ITR 407 (Madras) held that even assuming that there was defect in the notice, it had caused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee clearly understood what was the purport and import of notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271 of the Act. The SLP filed by the assessee before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also been dismissed ([2018] 259 Taxman 22…

Shri Nikhil Madan, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…notice issued by the AO is valid and mere mistake in the show cause notice will not render the entire proceedings illegal. In support of her contention she has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 403 ITR 407 (Mad.) and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has rejected such a ground raised against the 6 Shri Nikhil Madan, Jaipur. validity of show cause notice and held that all the violations will not result in nullifying the orders passed by statutory authorities. It was observed that if the case of the assessee is that they have been put to prejud…

M/S. C.S. Datamation Research Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3915/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

…d that it was not properly advised. So far as the argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the inappropriate words are not struck off from the notice, he submitted that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Mad) 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. While doing so, the Hon’ble High Court has considered the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton &…