Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.47 seconds)
Prasanna Kumar Patra, Puri vs Ito, Puri Ward, Puri on 7 December, 2020 cites

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

16. We have perused the notices and we find that the relevant columns have been marked, more particularly, when the case against the assessee is that they have concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the contention raised by the assessee is liable to be rejected on facts. That apart, this issue can never be a question of law in the assessees case, as it is purely a question on of fact. Apart from that, the assessee had at no earlier point of time raised the plea that on account of a defect in the notice, they were put to prejudice. All violations will not result in nullifying the orders passed by statutory authorities. If the case of the assessee is that they have been put to prejudice and principles of natural justice were violated on account of not being able to submit an effective reply, it would be a different matter. This was never the plea of the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or before the first Appellate Authority or before the Tribunal or before this Court when the Tax Case Appeals were filed and it was only after 10 years, when the appeals were listed for final hearing, this issue is sought to be raised. Thus on facts, we could safely conclude that even assuming that there was defect in the notice, it had caused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee clearly understood what was the purport and import of notice issued under Section 274 r/w.Section 271 of the Act. Therefore, principles of natural justice cannot be read in abstract P a g e 5 | 10 ITA No .3 39/ CT K/ 201 9 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 11- 12 and the assessee, being a limited company, having wide network in various financial services, should definitely be precluded from raising such a plea at this belated stage.
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

However, decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT vs. SSA's Emerala Meadows (supra) and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as the AO has miserably failed to specify in the notice issued under section 274 read with 271(l)(c) of the Act, "as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income", so in these circumstances, penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 857 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Kaushalya And Athers (Legal ... on 14 January, 1992

"13. Ld. DR for the Revenue to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee contended that assessee has never raised any such question of invalid notice during penalty proceedings nor before the ld. CIT (A) which has caused no prejudice to the assessee as the assessee has understood the purport and import of the notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (Madras), in which SLP has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case cited as Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs. CIT (2018) 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC) and also relied upon the judgment of CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya - 216 ITR 660 (Bombay) & Trimurti Engineering Works vs. ITO - (2012) 138 ITD 189 (Del.).
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 353 - Full Document
1   2 Next