cites: 166399742

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 December, 1996

record of the department and are pure question of law. Since the additional ground raised is a pure question of law and goes to the root of jurisdiction, we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC).

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 1462 - Full Document

Ventura Textiles Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Mumbai ... on 12 June, 2020

8. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Ventura Textiles Limited v. CIT in ITA No.958 of 2017 (judgment dated 12th June, 2020).

Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 15 - M N Jadhav - Full Document

Saleem Mohd. Nazir Shaikh, Mumbai vs Dcit Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai on 25 September, 2018

In the rejoinder, the learned AR relied on the latest Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd.Farhan A Shaikh v. DCIT reported in 431 ITR 1 (FB-Bom.).

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 61 - Full Document

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

10. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the Act (refer page 6 of the paper book filed by the assessee), it is clear that the same is defective as it does not spell out the ground on which the penalty is sought to be imposed, whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income . It can be seen from the copy of the notice proposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the irrelevant portion has not been strike off. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) has laid down the following principles in the matter of imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act:-

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1430 - A K Mittal - Full Document

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

10.1 It is clear from the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court that on the facts of the present case that the show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 by following earlier judgment in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (supra) took a view that imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does 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. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that as against the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court the revenue preferred an appeal in SLP in CC No.11485 of 2016 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 05.08.2016 dismissed the SLP preferred by the department.

Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 857 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal vs Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills ... on 17 August, 1971

10.1 It is clear from the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court that on the facts of the present case that the show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 by following earlier judgment in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (supra) took a view that imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does 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. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that as against the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court the revenue preferred an appeal in SLP in CC No.11485 of 2016 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 05.08.2016 dismissed the SLP preferred by the department.

Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 321 - A N Grover - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search