What is Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be imposed for a mere disallowance, bona fide mistake, or inadvertent error, especially when relevant facts are disclosed in the tax audit report. The levy of penalty requires proof of intent to conceal income or furnish false particulars.

How many judgments cite Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

313 judgments on BharatTax cite Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (348 ITR 306), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 274, Section 147, Section 148, Section 144.

Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (348 ITR 306)

SHRI AJAY MAYOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…n record to demonstrate that the explanation furnished by the assessee was false or lacking in bona fides. 15. Further support for this view can also be drawn from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) wherein the Court held that where the assessee has disclosed all material facts and the error arises on account of a bona fide interpretation or inadvertent mistake, the same would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the assessee…

SHIV RATAN EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARIDWAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 9

…made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pricewaterhouse Coopers vs CIT reported in 348 ITR 306 (SC) has held as under: 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the facts of the case are rather peculiar and somewhat unique. The assessee is undoubtedly a reputed firm and has great expertise available with it. Notwithstanding this, it is possible that even the assessee could make a “silly” mistake and indeed t…

NEYSA JEWLLERY LTD, ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5934/MUM/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

Section 10ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…e on such facts. To support such view, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs S.D. Rice Mills (2005) 275 ITR 206 (Punjab & Haryana) and Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 / 25 taxmann.com 400 (SC). 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that surrender of claim under section 10A was not voluntary, rather when the wrong claim of assessee was detected in survey, the assessee offe…

PEDA SUBBA RAO UNNAM,ADDANKI vs. ITO , WARD-1, ONGOLE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1664/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 69A

…alment but bona fide omission due to appellant medical condition and age related oversight. Argument: This is a fit case for levying nil or nominal penalty u/s 271(1)(c) even if the addition is sustained. Case Law: Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd vs CIT 2012 348 ITR 306 SC 8. Initiation Of Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) During Assessment, And Its Pendency, Demonstrates A Closed Mind And Prejudgment By The Assessing Officer, Vitiating The Entire Proceedings. Objection: The Assessing Officer (AO) mechanically initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) in the assessment order itself, for both "furnish…

KLIN INDUSTRIES,SANDHA KHAMIDANA, JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 857/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 80J

…10) 322ITR 158 (SC), wherein it was held that bona fide claim/deduction disallowed by the assessing officer cannot automatically penalized u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon`ble Supreme Court, in the case of in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), held that penalty should be deleted where a computational error occurred due to an oversight, and the facts were fully disclosed. 8. On the other hand, the Learned Senior DR for the Revenue, argued that merely because particular limb has not been mentioned in the penalty notice, that does not mean that the notice is defective. There is a c…

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

ITA 1685/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the AO during re-assessment proceedings.4. The authorities below further failed to appreciate that on the same set of facts, the AO with all his expertise on the provisions of the Act has allowed the deduction claimed Under Section 54F of the Act in the assessment order passed Under Section 143(3) r.w.s Section 147 of the Act and that deduction claimed by the appellant Under Section 54F of the Act was by inadvertent.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

…for alleged concealment of income for the aforesaid inadvertent error. The Ld. AR to support his contention had relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). 7 Gaddam Mohan Reddy vs. ITO 12. Per contra, Shri S. Arun Kumar, the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr. DR”) relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 13. We have given thought consideration to the contentions advanced by the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties. 14. Admittedly, it is a m…

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/IND/2025[2018 -2019]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 Dec 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

…d by the fact that the appellant has voluntary conceded that the depreciation is erroneously claimed and accordingly accepted the disallowance made. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 400/211 Taxman 40/348 ITR 306 (SC) has held that there would be no s. 271(1) (c) penalty for a "bona fide/ inadvertent/human error". The below observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) is relevant in this context - "Penalty is not to be imposed if there is no conscious breach of law. An order imposin…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 509/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

…d by the fact that the appellant has voluntary conceded that the depreciation is erroneously claimed and accordingly accepted the disallowance made. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 400/211 Taxman 40/348 ITR 306 (SC) has held that there would be no s. 271(1) (c) penalty for a "bona fide/ inadvertent/human error". The below observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC) is relevant in this context - "Penalty is not to be imposed if there is no conscious breach of law. An order imposin…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2175/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…e High Court have correctly reached this conclusion and, therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue has no merits and is dismissed.” 16. Ld. AR further relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) wherein the Civil Appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by observing as under :- “19. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2173/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…e High Court have correctly reached this conclusion and, therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue has no merits and is dismissed.” 16. Ld. AR further relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) wherein the Civil Appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by observing as under :- “19. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2172/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…e High Court have correctly reached this conclusion and, therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue has no merits and is dismissed.” 16. Ld. AR further relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) wherein the Civil Appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by observing as under :- “19. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2170/PUN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…e High Court have correctly reached this conclusion and, therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue has no merits and is dismissed.” 16. Ld. AR further relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) wherein the Civil Appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by observing as under :- “19. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SHIROL vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2169/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…e High Court have correctly reached this conclusion and, therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue has no merits and is dismissed.” 16. Ld. AR further relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) wherein the Civil Appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by observing as under :- “19. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case…

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

…be imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside." The situation in the present case is still better as no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the assessee in its Return." [Emphasis supplied] iv) 393 ITR 1 (Del) Pr. CIT v. Neeraj Jindal v) 348 ITR 306 (SC) Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. v. CIT vi) 292 ITR 11 (SC) T.Ashok Pai v. CIT 16. The term 'inaccurate particulars' is not defined. Furnishing of an assessment of value of the property may not by itself be furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Even if the Explanations are taken recourse to, a finding has to be arrived at having regard cla…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), , MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 890/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.871/Mum/2025 & 872/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2015-16 & 2017-18) ITA No. No.888/Mum/2025 to 890/Mum/2025 (A.Y.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2018-19) DCIT, Central Circle- Vs. Viraj Profiles Private 3(2), Mumbai-400051 Limited 10, Imperial Chamber Ballard Estate Mumbai – 400 001 PAN/GIR No.AABCV1740N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) CO No.101 & 102/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 872/Mum/2025 & 890/Mum/2025) (Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19) Viraj Profiles Private Vs. DCIT, Cen…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 888/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.871/Mum/2025 & 872/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2015-16 & 2017-18) ITA No. No.888/Mum/2025 to 890/Mum/2025 (A.Y.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2018-19) DCIT, Central Circle- Vs. Viraj Profiles Private 3(2), Mumbai-400051 Limited 10, Imperial Chamber Ballard Estate Mumbai – 400 001 PAN/GIR No.AABCV1740N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) CO No.101 & 102/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 872/Mum/2025 & 890/Mum/2025) (Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19) Viraj Profiles Private Vs. DCIT, Cen…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI vs. VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 871/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.871/Mum/2025 & 872/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year :2015-16 & 2017-18) ITA No. No.888/Mum/2025 to 890/Mum/2025 (A.Y.2011-12, 2013-14 & 2018-19) DCIT, Central Circle- Vs. Viraj Profiles Private 3(2), Mumbai-400051 Limited 10, Imperial Chamber Ballard Estate Mumbai – 400 001 PAN/GIR No.AABCV1740N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) CO No.101 & 102/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 872/Mum/2025 & 890/Mum/2025) (Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19) Viraj Profiles Private Vs. DCIT, Cen…

SS GROUP (P) LTD,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRLCE-4(1), GURGAON, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1094/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarm/S. Ss Group (P) Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 4 (1), Ss House, Plot No.77, Sector 44, Gurgaon. Sector 45, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aadcr8945B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 07.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Affirming The Penalty Order Dated 21.03.2022 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…the Act cannot be charged with having concealed for furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306. He relied on these decisions and prayed that the penalty levied on the assessee may be deleted. 3. Further ld. AR of the assessee submitted a letter dated 06.11.2017 which was submitted before the AO wherein it was submitted that assessee has submitted details of expenses in tax audit report in contravention to section 40A(3). Expenses were alre…

OGD SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1407/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43BSection 44A

…assessee and the auditor is required to give his opinion whether the prescribed particulars furnished by the assessee. Reliance in this regards is placed on the decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC)wherein it was held that where in tax audit report filed by assessee, it was indicated that provision towards payment of gratuity was not allowable but assessee failed to add said provision to total income, no penalty could be imposed as it was a bonafide mistake.\n6. We have perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The disput…

KAYCEE FINSTOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6688/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekaycee Finstock Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 7Th 705, Floor, Maker Tax -2(1)(1), Mumbai Chamber V, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan : Aacck6191P Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi– Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, on being confronted, accepted the additions.” 7. The Ld. AR, in the course of his submissions, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the order of the ITAT deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the imposition of penalty on the assessee was not justified since the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inac…

Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

What is Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

SHRI AJAY MAYOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

SHIV RATAN EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARIDWAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, DEHRADUN

NEYSA JEWLLERY LTD, ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIR-2(3)(1), MUMBAI

PEDA SUBBA RAO UNNAM,ADDANKI vs. ITO , WARD-1, ONGOLE

KLIN INDUSTRIES,SANDHA KHAMIDANA, JUNAGADH vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE, JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

GADDAM MOHAN REDDY,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

PRASAM RAKESH CHOUDHARY,GIRNAR SOCIETY, BAPURAO GALLI, ITWARI, NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), BHOPOAL, BHOPAL vs. M/S RASHTRIYA TAKNIKI SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN EVAM ANUNSANDHAN SANSTHAN, BHOPAL

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SHIROL vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), , MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI vs. VIRAJ PROFILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

SS GROUP (P) LTD,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRLCE-4(1), GURGAON, HARYANA

OGD SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

KAYCEE FINSTOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE