Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.79 seconds)
Shri Rajendra Mansukhani, Indore vs The Acit (Central) I, Indore on 26 July, 2018 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Raghunath Cotton Ginning And Oil ... on 26 October, 2004

The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250 (Kar.). 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11.10 The SLP filed by the revenue against the above judgment has been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced here in below: "1 Delay condoned 2 We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 3 Pending application, if any stands disposed off." 11.11 Therefore, in the circumstances and on the facts of the present case and in light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court reproduced hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the Assessing officer is required to specify as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the perusal of the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act, Assessing officer has not specified as to under which of the two limbs the penalty is imposable. In the circumstances and facts of the case, the penalty proceedings so initiated by the AO are bad in law and accordingly the penalties so initiated are ordered to be cancelled and the order/s of the learned CIT (A) are reversed. Thus, the legal ground raised is decided in favour of the assessee and is allowed."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1430 - A K Mittal - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Aggarwal Construction Co. on 29 January, 2007

13. We also find that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Agrawal Construction Co. (2018) 32 ITJ 724 (MP) adjudicating very same issue upheld the finding of the Tribunal observing that, "in the absence of any such finding in respect of inaccurate particulars of income, further proceedings imposing the penalty against the respondent could not have been initiated by the authority concern and the authorities are required to record, a subjective satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 36 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Hatch Associates India Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Dcit, Gurgaon on 2 April, 2018

12. We find that in a recent decision of the coordinate Bench Delhi dated 26.03.2018 in the case of Ravine & Associates Private Limited v. ACIT (2018) 64 (Tribunal) 149, identical issue about the validity of notice u/s 274 of the Act was adjudicated and decided in the favour of the assessee after relying on various judgments of Hon'ble Apex court and other Hon'ble High Courts observing as follows:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ssa'S Emerald Meadows on 5 August, 2016

11.9 The above said decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) has been followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows 73 taxmann.com 241 and the relevant portion is as under: "2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: 1 Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assessee had concealed income in the facts and circumstances of the case? 2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is bad in law and invalid despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? 3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeals against the Revenue on the basis of notice issued under Section 274 without taking into consideration the assessment order when the assessing officer has specified that the assessee has concealed particulars of income?" 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 857 - Full Document
1