Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.41 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Raghunath Cotton Ginning And Oil ... on 26 October, 2004
"In CIT v. SSA'S Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241
(Karnataka) the High Court of Karnataka following the decision
in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning
Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565
(Karnataka) held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c)
of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause
notice under section 274 of the Act did not specify the charge against the
assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or
furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ssa'S Emerald Meadows on 5 August, 2016
The said decision of the
High Court of Karnataka was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the decision reported in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SSA'S Emerald
Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248/242 Taxman 180 (SC).
Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Principal Cit vs Brijendra Kumar Poddar on 23 November, 2021
On the
same lines it is the decision of this court in Pr. CIT v. Brijendra Kumar
Poddar in [ITAT No. 215 of 2018, dated 23-11-2021]. As pointed out
earlier, the show cause notice issued under Section 274 read with
Section 271 of the Act did not furnish any particulars and all the relevant
columns have been left blank. Thus, by applying the legal position in the
aforementioned decision, this court has no hesitation to hold that the
show cause notice was bad in law consequently the initiation of penalty
proceedings is vitiated."
1