Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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>Appeal granted, penalty canceled due to defective notice violating natural justice.</h1> <h3>M/s. Samanthu Business Forms Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 2 (2), Bangalore.</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2012-13. The ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - as alleged show cause notice does not strike out the irrelevant portion viz., “furnished inaccurate particulars of income” or “concealed particulars of such income” - HELD THAT:- Show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) dated 31.12.2008 is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court following its own decision in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] took a view that imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) 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. - Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:1. Validity of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Adequacy of the show-cause notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271.3. Compliance with the principles of natural justice.4. Relevance of judicial precedents.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Penalty Imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the AO's penalty imposition of Rs. 14,04,106/- under section 271(1)(c). The penalty was initially levied due to alleged concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal found that the show-cause notice did not specify whether the penalty was for 'concealing particulars of income' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income,' making the penalty order unsustainable.2. Adequacy of the Show-Cause Notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271:The Tribunal scrutinized the show-cause notice and found it defective because it did not strike off the irrelevant portion, failing to specify the exact charge against the assessee. This defect was highlighted as per the precedent set by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), which mandates that the notice must clearly state the grounds for penalty.3. Compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice:The Tribunal emphasized that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given a clear and specific charge to defend against. The vague notice did not allow the assessee to effectively contest the penalty, thus offending the principles of natural justice.4. Relevance of Judicial Precedents:The Tribunal relied heavily on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, which laid down that a penalty notice must specify the exact charge. The Tribunal also referred to other cases where similar issues were adjudicated, such as SSA's Emerald Meadows, where the Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court's decision that a vague notice invalidates the penalty.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained due to the defective show-cause notice. The principles set by the Karnataka High Court in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory were applied, leading to the cancellation of the penalty. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the stay petition was dismissed as infructuous.Final Order:The appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 was allowed, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c). The stay petition was dismissed as it became infructuous following the cancellation of the penalty. The judgment was pronounced on 4th September 2019.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found