Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.43 seconds)
Dcit, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata, ... vs M/S. Rajgaria Timbers Privtate ... on 8 February, 2019
cites
Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal vs Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills ... on 17 August, 1971
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 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 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
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 vs M/S Ssa'S Emerald Meadows on 5 August, 2016
3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of 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 wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court following its own
decision in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565
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 decision 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.
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.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mithila Motors (P.) Limited on 17 August, 1983
2011-12-2012-13
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.
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Dr.Murari Mohan Koley on 18 July, 2018
5. Respectfully following the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the
case of Dr. Murari Mohan Koley, supra and coordinate bench of this Tribunal, we,
therefore, hold that penalty deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in the
present case for both the years is upheld and hence, we confirm the same. Therefore, the
appeals of revenue are dismissed.