• Follow
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com   

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 274

Home Case Index Income Tax Sections List
Filter:
Cases for Section: 274
Showing 1 to 15 of 279 Records
 

2016 (4) TMI 1124 - ITAT KOLKATA

ACIT, CC-IV, Kolkata Versus M/s. Jain Infra Projects Ltd (since taken over M/s. Bengal Construction Co.) and Vica-Versa

Penalty u/s.271(1)( c ) - Held that - In the present case satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)( c) of the Act is not discernible from the order of assessment. The show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act is also defective. The same is also enclosed as Annexure A to this order. Following the decision referred to above, we hold that the penalty imposed on the Assessee u/s.271(1)( c) of the Act cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be cancelled. Accordingly, the additional ground ra ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 950 - ITAT PUNE

S.L.K. Properties Versus ITO, Ward-2 (1) , Pune

Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Held that - Since it is not clear from the notice u/s.274 the reasons for levying of penalty as to whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the notice itself is bad in law and invalid. Therefore, the penalty order passed subsequently on the basis of such invalid notic ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 992 - ITAT JAIPUR

Radha Mohan Maheshwari Versus D.C.I.T. Central Circle-3, Jaipur.

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction specifically for concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and on both. The various courts have held that this satisfaction can be for both the purposes i.e. for concealed particulars of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income jointly as both the satisfaction are overlapping, which is also not found place in the case before us. The Assessing Officer even has not ticked specific satisfaction in notice U/s 274 of the Act. Sending printed form where all ....... - .......


2016 (3) TMI 541 - ITAT DELHI

Deepak Minda Versus Additional CIT, New Delhi

Penalty u/s 271E r.w.s 274 - undisclosed source of cash payment - Held that - We find that the fact that Sh. Harish Bindal and Smt. Sunita Bindal had a violent acrimonious relationship is evidence on record which has not been disputed by the Revenue. The reference to the incidents set out in the police complaint made by Smt. Sunita Bindal read out by the Ld. AR citing instances of mental and physical harassment necessitating seeking police protection and intervention has not been rebutted by the Revenue. The correctness of the same has not been assailed. In these peculiar facts and circumstanc ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 552 - ITAT KOLKATA

Amar Nath Shroff Versus D.C.I.T., Central Circle-1, Kolkata and Vica-Versa

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to be cancelled on the ground that there was no proper recording of satisfaction in the order of assessment and that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not satisfy the specific charge against the assessee. Consequently the orders imposing penalty for all ....... - .......


2016 (3) TMI 642 - ITAT KOLKATA

Nishith Kumar Jain Versus ACIT, Central Circle-XXVII, Kolkata

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - Held 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. Thus hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years ....... - .......


2016 (3) TMI 112 - ITAT BANGALORE

Shri Moorsavirappa C. Batli Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3) , Hubli

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - Concealment of income - Held that - Show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer for levy of penalty under Section 274 r.w.s. 271 is defective as the Assessing Officer has not specified the grounds on which the penalty sought to be levied. See CIT Vs. Manjunatha ....... - .......


2016 (3) TMI 366 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Esskay Pharmaceuticals Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - time limit to levy penalty - Held that - The penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which, action for imposition of penalty has been initiated are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which order of the CIT(A) or the Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or the CIT. In other words, in the present case, the proceedings given rise to the penalty were completed on 15.7.1997 when the CIT(A) has passed the order. This order has been given ....... - .......


2016 (3) TMI 537 - ITAT MUMBAI

M/s J.N.C. International Versus ITO, Ward 14 (3) (3) , Earnest House, Mumbai

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non communication of charge - Held that - On perusal of the said notice we have observed that the said notice did not contain any specific charge as to whether the penalty proceeding was initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of such income and even in the body of the assessment order, what has been stated is, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation thereto are initiated separately . In these situation it is clear that by not specifying the specific charge in the show cause notice, the assessee has infact been denied is reasonabl ....... - .......


2016 (2) TMI 878 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM

Tangi Hari Versus DCIT Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

Validity of penalty orders u/s 271(1)(c) - period of limitation - Held that - The case of Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI & Ors. (2006 (4) TMI 96 - MADRAS High Court) has considered proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act vis- -vis appeal to the Tribunal and held that the proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act, does not nullify the availability to the third respondent of the period of limitation of 6 months from the end of the month when the order of the Tribunal, is received by the third respondent. The Hon ble Madras High Court also supports our view expressed above. In view of the ....... - .......


2016 (3) TMI 1055 - ITAT CHENNAI

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax Company Circle-I (1) , Coimbatore Versus M/s Cotton City Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Applicability of provisions of sec. 142A - non rejection of books of accounts - addition u/s 69B - - Reference made to DVO u/s 142A - Held that - A decided in M/s Legend Estates Pvt Ltd. vs DCIT 2014 (4) TMI 154 - ITAT HYDERABAD A reference to DVO u/s. 142A can be made only when a requirement is felt by the AO for making such reference. Requirement would arise or could be felt only when there is some material with the AO to show that whatever estimate assessee has shown is not correct or not reliable - The use of word require is not superfluous but signifies a definite meaning whereby some pre ....... - .......


2016 (2) TMI 701 - ITAT KOLKATA

Mahabir Prasad Agarwal Versus A.C.I.T., Central Circle-XIII, Kolkata

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - As 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. Following the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to ....... - .......


2015 (12) TMI 1518 - ITAT MUMBAI

Sanghavi Savla Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-46, Mumbai

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held that - Respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) we hold that the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 30.12.2009 for A.Y. 2007-08 for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of ....... - .......


2015 (12) TMI 1524 - ITAT KOLKATA

Shri Satyananda Achariya Biswas Versus DCIT, Central Circle-Xiii, Kolkata

Penalty u/s 271(1)( c) - Held 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. - See case of CIT Vs. MWP Ltd. 2013 (12) TMI 1214 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT wherein held that mere mention of Penalty Proceedings under section 271(1)( c) initiated separately in assessm ....... - .......


2016 (1) TMI 718 - ITAT KOLKATA

M/s Sajan Kumar Bansal And Sons (HUF) Versus DCIT, Circle-XXI, Kolkata

Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)( c) - Held 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. Following the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court In the case of CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT we hold that the orders imposing ....... - .......


 
   
 
 
1........
 

what is new what is new

Latest Updates

Featured

Subscription

Experts

More Options

Communication




|| About us || Contact us || Feed Back || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map || ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Website