Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.61 seconds)
M/S Akshay Kumar Ghosh & Sons, Kolkata vs Ito, Wd-34(2), Kolkata, Kolkata on 22 December, 2017
cites
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Kaushalya And Athers (Legal ... on 14 January, 1992
In the case of Trishul Enterprises ITA No.384 & 385/Mum/2014, the Mumbai
Bench of ITAT followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the
case of Smt.Kaushalya (supra).
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Raghunath Cotton Ginning And Oil ... on 26 October, 2004
In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT
Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton &
Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for
so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice
u/s.274 of the Act. This is not factually correct.
Dr. Syamal Baran Mondal vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xx on 18 February, 2011
7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of
Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal) has taken a view
that Sec.271 does not mandate that the recording of satisfaction about
concealment of income must be in specific terms and words and that satisfaction
of AO must reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded by the
AO or by his overt act and action. In our view this decision is on the question of
recording satisfaction and not in the context of specific charge in the mandatory
show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act.
M/S Maharaj Garage & Co.Nagpur vs Commissioner Of Income ... on 22 August, 2017
Reliance was placed on two decisions of
the Hon'ble Bombay High Court viz., (i) CIT Vs. Kaushalya 216 ITR 660(Bom)
and (ii) M/S.Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017. This decision was
referred to in the written note given by the learned DR. This is an unreported
decision and a copy of the same was not furnished.
Earthmoving Equipment Service ... vs Dcit 22( 2), Mumbai on 2 May, 2017
In the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra), the ITAT
Mumbai did not follow the decision rendered in the case of Manjunatha Cotton &
Ginning Factory (supra) for the reason that penalty in that case was deleted for
so many reasons and not solely on the basis of defect in show cause notice
u/s.274 of the Act. This is not factually correct.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal vs Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills ... on 17 August, 1971
The ld. Counsel also
brought to our notice the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case
of CIT vs Shri Samson Perinchery in ITA No.1154 of 2014 dated 05.01.2017
wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court following the decision of the Hon'ble
Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning
factory (supra) came to the conclusion that imposition of penalty on defective
show cause notice without specifying the charge against the assessee cannot be
sustained.
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mithila Motors (P.) Limited on 17 August, 1983
Reliance was also placed by the
ITAT Mumbai in this decision on the decision of Hon'ble Patna High court in the
case of CIT v. Mithila Motor's (P.) Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (Patna) wherein it
was held that under section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, all that is required
is that the assessee should be given an opportunity to show cause. No statutory
notice has been prescribed in this behalf. Hence, it is sufficient if the assessee was
aware of the charges he had to meet and was given an opportunity of being
heard. A mistake in the notice would not invalidate penalty proceedings.