Price Water House Coopers v. CIT

253 CTR 1Supreme Court of India2012#13856 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35(2)(AB)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(i)Section 90

Judgments citing Price Water House Coopers v. CIT

DCIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi vs. Polyplex Corporation Limited., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 701/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Polyplex Corporation Limited, Circle-20(1), 40, New Mandakini, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacp0278J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(2)(AB)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

…were available before the AO, at best it was an inadvertent error committed by the appellant. The explanation furnished by the appellant are genuine and bonafide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 253 CTR 1 (SC) (2012) has held as under: "Held, allowing the appeal, that the facts of the case were peculiar and somewhat unique. Notwithstanding that the assessee was a reputed firm and had great expertise available with it, it was possible that even the assessee could make a "silly" mistake. The fact that the tax audit report was filed along with the retu…

Shri Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 205/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat Income Tax Officer, Ward- 55,V.T. Nagar, Near Sarthana 3(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Jakatnaka, Varachha, Majura Gate, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 Pan No: Adkpk 2173 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत "ायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.205/SRT/2023 (AY 2016-17) (Hearing in Physical Court) Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat Income Tax Officer, Ward- 55,V.T. Nagar, Near Sarthana 3(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Jakatnaka, Varachha, Majura Gate, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 PAN No: ADKPK 2173 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Mehul Shah, C.A राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR अपील पंजीकरण/Date of filing appeal 24.03.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of…

M/S. Ashok Organic Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Special Range-27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5371/MUM/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha, Assessment Year: 1996-97 M/S Kumatka Industries Ltd. Dcit, (Formerly Known As M/S Ashok Special Range-27, बनाम/ Organic Industries Ltd.) Room No.535, Vs. 5Th Floor, Ramkrishna Aayakar Bhavan, Chambers, Bpc Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Alkapuri, Vadoara Mumbai-400020 Gujarat-390007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaca3371M

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 35D

…son, the assessee would invite penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. That is not the intention of the legislature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered identical issue in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (2012) 253 CTR 1(SC), where it was held that no penalty can be levied for inadvertent error or bona fide mistakes while submitting return. In this case on perusal of facts, we find that the assessee has filed complete details in respect of share issue expenses even though the claim made under section 35D was incorrect. Although, the AO has disallowed of deductio…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sitashri Trading & Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2295/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14Section 143(2)Section 14A

…the income exempted u/s 10(38) was to be reduced but it appears that clerk has taken the figure of all the income exempted u/s 10 and they have further relied upon the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158, Price Water Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 253 CTR 1 (SC) and CIT v. S.Dhanabal 178 Taxman 242 (Del) and pleaded that the difference in the book profit has been computed on the basis of the facts, information and figures duly disclosed by the appellant in its return of income as well as. audited accounts which we furnished before the Ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appel…

M/S. Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Company Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2658/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin J.Marfatia – CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Smitha V.Nair – Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ed while computing the total income and this mistake was accepted by the assessee immediately when the same was pointed during the course of assessment proceedings. Placing reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers Vs. CIT 253 CTR 1 (SC). The ld.AR submitted that the assessee has shown in the return of income huge loss of Rs.596 crores, therefore, there was no intention of making such mistake for negligible amount, therefore, penalty may kindly be deleted. 18. Replying to the above, the ld.DR supported the penalty as well as first appellate order by contending that the wrong…

M/S. Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Company Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2660/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin J.Marfatia – CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Smitha V.Nair – Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ed while computing the total income and this mistake was accepted by the assessee immediately when the same was pointed during the course of assessment proceedings. Placing reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers Vs. CIT 253 CTR 1 (SC). The ld.AR submitted that the assessee has shown in the return of income huge loss of Rs.596 crores, therefore, there was no intention of making such mistake for negligible amount, therefore, penalty may kindly be deleted. 18. Replying to the above, the ld.DR supported the penalty as well as first appellate order by contending that the wrong…

M/S. Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal Company Ltd., Bharuch vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2659/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin J.Marfatia – CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Smitha V.Nair – Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ed while computing the total income and this mistake was accepted by the assessee immediately when the same was pointed during the course of assessment proceedings. Placing reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers Vs. CIT 253 CTR 1 (SC). The ld.AR submitted that the assessee has shown in the return of income huge loss of Rs.596 crores, therefore, there was no intention of making such mistake for negligible amount, therefore, penalty may kindly be deleted. 18. Replying to the above, the ld.DR supported the penalty as well as first appellate order by contending that the wrong…

Price Water House Coopers v. CIT (253 CTR 1) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax