Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Invalid Penalty Orders Cancelled for Defective Notices</h1> <h3>Shri H. Lakshminarayana Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3), Bangalore</h3> Shri H. Lakshminarayana Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3), Bangalore - [2015] 41 ITR (Trib) 465 (ITAT [Bang]) Issues Involved:1. Validity of the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Defectiveness of the show cause notice issued under Section 274 of the Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Penalty Order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The primary issue in these appeals was the challenge against the order of the CIT(Appeals) confirming the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalties were imposed due to the assessee's failure to disclose interest income earned from deposits and savings bank accounts in the returns filed for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09. The assessee later filed revised returns to include this omitted income. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised a technical objection regarding the validity of the penalty orders, arguing that the notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were defective.2. Defectiveness of the Show Cause Notice Issued under Section 274 of the Act:The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee, which questioned the validity of the penalty orders on the basis that the show cause notices issued under Section 274 were defective. The assessee contended that the notices did not specify whether the penalty was being initiated for 'concealing particulars of income' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income,' as the relevant columns were not struck off. The Tribunal referred to the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn), which held that a notice under Section 274 must specifically state the grounds for imposing the penalty and that a vague notice would violate the principles of natural justice.The Tribunal emphasized that the Karnataka High Court had laid down clear principles regarding the issuance of notices under Section 274. It stated that the notice should specifically mention the grounds for imposing the penalty, and a printed form with all grounds mentioned would not suffice. The Tribunal found that the show cause notices issued to the assessee were indeed defective as they did not specify the grounds for the penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty orders were invalid and quashed them.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the penalty orders for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2008-09 were invalid due to the defective show cause notices issued under Section 274 of the Act. The appeals were allowed on this technical ground, and the penalties imposed were canceled. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case as the appeals were decided on the technical ground. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on July 3, 2015.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found