← All Phrases

“vague penalty notice”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)10 judgments

PRITI SOMANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Coubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1387 & 1388/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Priti Somani, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Axdps 0604 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “डी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT

PRITI SOMANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD -3(1), GANGTOK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1387/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Coubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1387 & 1388/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Priti Somani, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Axdps 0604 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “डी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT

BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 43/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

MR. MANOJ KUMAR GOUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

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

ITA 1145/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

fault/charge for which the assessee is put on notice, so that he can defend the charge properly. The issue of bad/ vague penalty notice was adjudicated by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court [though in a different context i.e notice issued u/s. 274 read with section

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

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

ITA 1144/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

fault/charge for which the assessee is put on notice, so that he can defend the charge properly. The issue of bad/ vague penalty notice was adjudicated by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court [though in a different context i.e notice issued u/s. 274 read with section

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

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

ITA 1143/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

fault/charge for which the assessee is put on notice, so that he can defend the charge properly. The issue of bad/ vague penalty notice was adjudicated by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court [though in a different context i.e notice issued u/s. 274 read with section

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

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

ITA 1142/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

fault/charge for which the assessee is put on notice, so that he can defend the charge properly. The issue of bad/ vague penalty notice was adjudicated by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court [though in a different context i.e notice issued u/s. 274 read with section

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

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

ITA 1141/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

fault/charge for which the assessee is put on notice, so that he can defend the charge properly. The issue of bad/ vague penalty notice was adjudicated by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court [though in a different context i.e notice issued u/s. 274 read with section

vague penalty notice — 10 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax