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

359 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 306Supreme Court of India2012#213 most cited

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.

359

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Price Waterhouse Coopers v CIT · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · bona fide mistake · inadvertent error · disallowance not penalty · tax audit report disclosure · Section 274 · SC 2012

Also reported as

211 Taxmann 40

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 274 Section 147 Section 148 Section 144 Section 40A(7)Section 263

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c)penalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of income section 274 section 271(1)levy of penalty section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 commissioner (appeals)

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

Garron Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-8(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshgarron Trading Company Pvt. Ito -8(1)(4) Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., B-202, New Usha Nagar, Vs. Village Road, Bhandup (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400078 Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacg8957B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri P.V. Thombre (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Thombre (AR)For Respondent: Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Garron Trading Company Pvt. ITO -8(1)(4) Room No. 206, 2nd Floor, Ltd., B-202, New Usha Nagar, Vs. Village Road, Bhandup (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400078 Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACG8957B Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri P.V. Thombre (AR) Respondent by : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is…

Harish C. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-24, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 298/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodharish C. Mehta Pr. Cit-24, Times Square, 602 B, Piramal Chambers, „B‟ Wing, Nr. Marol Mumbai – 400 012 Vs. Metro Station, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059

For Appellant: Shri Reepal C. Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivas, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…bonafide error, and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). As regards the reliance placed by the Pr. CIT on the judgment of the Hon’be Apex court in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC), we find that the same is distinguishable on facts. In the aforementioned case the surrender of income of Rs. 40,74,000/- was not voluntary, as it was made by the assessee after detection by…

Popley Diamond and Gold Plaza Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1841/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.1841/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Popley diamond And Gold Plaza Pvt. Ltd. 188/A, Turner Road, Bandra (W) ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 050 PAN – AAACS5154L v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–13(1)(2), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Niraj Seth Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date of Hearing – 11.04.2019 Date of Order – 29.05.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the…

Sh. Tarun Arora, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4989/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, Adv., MsFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…ry raised by the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings. Thus, no penalty can be levied on such a revised claim. In support, he also relied upon following judgments:- “1. Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). 2. CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. reported in (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). 3. CIT vs. Compro Technologies P. Ltd. reported in (2015) 232 Taxman 392 (Delhi). 4. PCIT vs. Control & Switchgear contractors Ltd. reported in (2015) 377 ITR 215 (Delhi). ALP Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT. (ITAT) (DEL)” 5. 10. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR pointed…

Nirmal Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1012/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 1012/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2008-09) I.T.A. No. 1013/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 1014/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1015/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 1016/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2010-11) M/s. Nirmal Infrastructure DCIT, CC-3(1) Vs. Private Limited Room No.1924 3rd Floor, Multiplex Building 19th Floor Noirmal Lifestyle Air India Building LBS Marg, Mulund (West) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 080. Mumbai-400 021. PAN : AACCN4417H (Appellant) (Resp…

M/S Indu Nissan Oxo Chemicals Inds. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2150/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2150/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’C’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2150/AHD/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 M/s.Indu Nissan Oxo A.C.I.T, Chemicals Inds. Ltd., Vs. 103, 1st Floor, BhajwaChhani Road, Ayakar Bhawan, B/h. GSFC Complex, Race Course Circle, Bajwa, Dist. Baroda-39007. Vadodara-391310. PAN: AAACI4359M (Applicant) (Respondent) : Assessee by Shri S.N. Divetia, A.R : Revenue by Shri L.P. Jain, D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 25/04/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date o…

M/S. Fixopan Machines (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1436/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs Fixopan Machines (P) Ltd., Acit S-35, Greater Kailash-1, Cc-Vii New Delhi. New Delhi.

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…f the Act. However, all the facts relating to unabsorbed depreciation were available to the AO in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act and return filed u/s 153C of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 cancelled the penalty because the claim of gratuity was not allowable deduction which was inadvertent silly mistake on the part of the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of addition made by the authorities below, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We…

Mr. Chandershekhar Kapur, Mumbai vs. I.T.O. Ward - 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1118/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhmr Chandershekhar Kapur Ito, Ward 16(1)(1), A-5, Beach House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Gandhi Gram Road, Mumbai-400020 Juhu, Mumbai-400001. Vs. Pan: Aacpk9387Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Vipul Mody (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Vipul Mody (AR)For Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje (DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr Chandershekhar Kapur ITO, Ward 16(1)(1), A-5, Beach House, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Gandhi Gram Road, Mumbai-400020 Juhu, Mumbai-400001. Vs. PAN: AACPK9387Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Nitesh Joshi & Vipul Mody (AR) Respondent by : Shri Pramod Nikalje (DR) Date of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of Income-tax Act (‘…

Harshad Sevantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 25(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6473/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood & Assessment Year-2013-14 Harshad Sevantilal Shah, Acit-25(2), B-501, Shantiniketan, Dixit 5Th Floor, C-10, Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Road, Opp. Ashish Nursingh Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. Home, Vile Parle (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400057 Mumbai-400051 Pan No.Abaps7896P ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Assessment Year-2013-14 Harshad Sevantilal Shah, ACIT-25(2), B-501, Shantiniketan, Dixit 5th Floor, C-10, Pratyakshkar बनाम/ Road, Opp. Ashish Nursingh Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. Home, Vile Parle (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400057 Mumbai-400051 PAN No.ABAPS7896P ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by NONE Shri Manoj Kumar Singh राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 23/04/2019 25/04/2019 आदेश क" तार"ख /D…

Rajesh Sharma, Theog vs. ITO, W-2, Shimla

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1438/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, CIT DR

Section 2Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…pent money on the purchase of the property under consideration, hence it cannot be said that the assessee concealed the income or filed inaccurate particulars of income. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Ltd. Vs. CIT & Another, reported in 348 ITR 306 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd., reported in 348 ITR 339. 6 A.Y.2014-15 7. In his rival submission, the Ld. Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the p…

M/S. P.S. Associates, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1452/JPR/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahala (JCIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…(1)(c) can be invoked only when there is a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) and submitted that if the assessee has committed an error due to bonafide belief then the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. He has also relied upon the decision in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products P. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that any claim which is not acceptable as per the provisions of the Act would not…

M/S Just Dial Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6900/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathajust Dial Ltd (Formerly Dcit-9(2) Known As Just Dial Pvt.Ltd.) Now Dcit 12(3)(1) M-501-B, Palm Court Room No.147B Complex, Above D-Mart Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Near Goregaon Sport Club, Mumbai-400 020 New Link Road, Malad (W) Mumbai-400 064 Pan: Aaca8049G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Respondent By: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e during assessment itself. The explanation offered by the assessee was satisfactory as it was a human error. In support of the submission the Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pricewaterhouse Copers Pvt Ltd (PWC) Vs CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC), Bombay High Court Vs. Bennett Colemann & Co.Ltd. 259 CTR 383, CIT vs Somany Evergree Knits Ltd 352 ITR 592 (Bombay) and Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Siddharth Enterprises 322 ITR 80. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of AO. The Ld. DR further submits that had the case was not been selected for sc…

Shri Vivek Jain, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Anuradha (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…relevant particulars were duly disclosed in the return of income. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble 4 Shri Vivek Jain vs. DCIT 322 ITR 158 as well as the decision in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 348 ITR 306. The ld. AR has pleaded that the penalty confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) may be deleted. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has made an excessive claim of interest which is not permissible as per the provisions of Act. Since, the residential house was occupied to the extent ¾ and was let out the remaining portion i.e. ¼ par…

N- Serve Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6313/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…refused to take on record the affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Goel, CA stating that since it was not filed before the A.O., you shall not accept the same. At this, the undersigned tried to explain that even in the case of Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) the Supreme Court had taken cognizance of an affidavit which was filed for the first time before them and was not available with any of the lower authorities. The undersigned also requested that the affidavit may be taken on record and the office of CIT (Appeals) may choose to deal with it in any manner as it may deem fit, either by not admi…

Hari Dutt Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 5884/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh.K.N.Charyassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 271Section 80

…counted the eligible assessment years from A. Y. 2010-11. In our considered opinion this clearly shows the human error and cannot partake the colour of intentional or willful claim. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water Coopers reported in 348 ITR 306 has held that imposing of penalty would be unwarranted in a case where the assessee had considered an inadvertent and bonafide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its claim or furnish inaccurate particulars. 5 17. The reliance placed by DR in the case of Dharmendra Textile (supra) is misplaced since in that case the Hon’…

Hindustan General Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6343/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 147Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…admitted fact that for this year the assessee offered rent for taxation under the head ‘income from house property’. 16. In these circumstances, assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Ltd., 348 ITR 306 and also CIT vs Reliance Petro Products Ltd., 322 ITR 158 to show that a silly mistake has committed by a professional firm like Price Waterhouse Coopers Ltd. can be on account of bona fide and inadvertent error and, therefore, it did not mean that the assessee was guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its in…

Hindustan General Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6342/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 147Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

Tcg Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, R-59(TDS), Kolkata

In the result, both these appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1237/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2019AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri C. J. Singh, Sr. Dr, JCIT

Section 17Section 17(2)Section 271C

…I.T.A No.1235 & 1237/Kol/2016 TCG Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice President and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A No.1235 & 1237/Kol/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) TCG Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. Appellant [PAN: CALCO 3085 F] Vs ITO, Ward-59(4)(TDS), Kolkata Respondent For the Appellant : Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA For the Respondent : Shri C. J. Singh, Sr. Dr, JCIT Date of hearing : 20.12.2018 Date of pronouncement : 19.03.2019 ORDER PER Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM: These two appeals by the assessee agains…

Tcg Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, R-59(TDS), Kolkata

In the result, both these appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1235/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2019AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri C. J. Singh, Sr. Dr, JCIT

Section 17Section 17(2)Section 271C

Concrete Ideas Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12 (1) (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 6768/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

…1 Concrete Ideas Realtors P.Ltd. Assessment Year :2010-11 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6768/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Concrete Ideas Realtors Pvt.Ltd. ITO-12(1)(4) 901, Empressa Amore बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan Station Road, Khar (W) M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 052. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACCC-3864-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (…