Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.41 seconds)
M/S. Precision Transmision Chain, ... vs Ito, Ward - 24(2), Hooghly , Hooghly on 7 December, 2018 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 321 - A N Grover - Full Document

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.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 215 - Full Document

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

6. 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.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 857 - Full Document

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.
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 182 - K J Sengupta - Full Document
1   2 Next