PANASONIC INDIA PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 10
ITA 479/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2016AY 2007-08
Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 479/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008. M/S. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Spic Building Annexe, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, 88, Mount Road, Company Circle V(1) Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aadcp 9391B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)
For Appellant: Shri. Pradeep Dinodia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri.Durai Pandian, Sr. A.R
Section 271(1)Section 92BSection 92F
penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) of the
Act. As per the ld. Authorised Representative notice issued by the
Assessing Officer u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1) (c) of the Act was vague, and
hence the order pursuant to such notice was invalid. Reliance was
placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of
CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton