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 274Section 147Section 148Section 144Section 40A(7)Section 263

Issues it is cited on

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

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

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Vini Cosmetic Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 796/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin Shah and Bhadresh Gandhakwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 72A(2)

…was found any concealment of any facts relating to such particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, penalty cannot be imposed. The judgment cited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd.-vs-CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) was also relied upon. It appears from the records that the assessee explained the situation to the best possible manner pleaded bonafide. Such explanation was not found false by the Learned AO. The materials relating to returned income was duly disclosed before the Learned AO. At that relevant point of time, there was no iota of evidence of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Airline Allied Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5569/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh.H.S.Sidhu & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit Airline Allied Services Ltd. Room No.205, 2Nd Floor, G- Circle –1 (1) Vs New Delhi 5, Building, Termina01, Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan No.Aaaca1517B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…se of the assessment proceedings and prayed for the deletion of the penalty. 8. The CIT(A) was convinced with the contention of the assessee and drawing support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water Coopers Private Limited 348 ITR 306 deleted penalty so levied. 9. Before us the Ld. DR relied upon the judgment reported in 295 ITR 244. 10. Per contra the Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee has been assessed on MAT as per the provision of the section 115 JB of the Act and therefore, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act. 11. We have ca…

Sea View Developers, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 5791/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5791/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिधम/ Sea View Developers Dcit-C.C. 4(2), Raheja Chambers, Linking Mumbai Air India Building Vs. Road, Main Avenue, 23-35, M.R. Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400054. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfs6301F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vinay Sinha Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.06.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2013-14 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay SinhaFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ns u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. At the time of argument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the assessee if any did the bonafide mistake, therefore, no penalty is leviable in view of the law settled Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC). It is also argued that the assessee made the wrong claim which was not allowable if any so the penalty is not leviable in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Reliance petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 322 (SC). On the other hand, the ld. Representative of the Department has refuted ITA. No.5791/M/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 the said contenti…

Late Purnima Bhandari Through L/H Shri N.K. Dewan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6365/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Late Purnima Bhandari Vs. Dcit, Through L/H Shri N.K. Circle-14(2), C.R. Building, Dewan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 45, Golf Links, New Delhi Pan :Aaebp4567H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri B.K. Anand, Ca Respondent By Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr.Dr

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

…the contention, reliance was placed on the order of the ITAT, Mumbai bench in ITA No.2924/Mum/2011 in the case of Shri Suresh Kumar Gulati, wherein relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Private Limited, 348 ITR 306 (SC), it was held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act need not be levied where there has been some mistake in computation of the total income, merely as a technical fault. 4.1 The Ld. CIT(A), however, was of the view that it was not a technical or clerical mistake or it is not the case of any ad-hoc addition made or any claim of expen…

Taneja Rice & Dall Mills, Kanpur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 548/LKW/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jan 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Ys. 2003-04

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…n sale of land and keeping in view the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal reported in (2001) 251 ITR 9 and the latest decision in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2012) 348 ITR 306, no penalty was leviable/maintainable.” 2 The grievance of the assessee is against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, which has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 3. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee invited our attention to the show cause notice for penalty under section 271(1)(c) o…

Adi Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 6035/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 24Section 24(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6035/DEL/2015 (A.Y 2008-09) Adi Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO N-49, Greater Kailsah-1 Ward-1(2), Range-1 New Delhi Central Revenue Building AAECA1780C New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Pawan Jand, CA Respondent by Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement 17.01.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 17/08/2015 passed by CIT(A)-1, New Delh…

Viscus Infotech Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3), Inore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 708/IND/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Jan 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 10BSection 148Section 271(1)(c)

…[ITA 708/Ind/2017] [M/s. Viscus Infotech Limited, Indore] आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Viscus Infotech Limited ITO, 4(3) Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AABCV1527D Appellant by Shri Anil Khandelwal, A.R. Respondent by Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 21.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 02.01.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 20…

DDIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rbm Pati Joint Venture, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3471/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 40A(2)(b)

…of the assessee is patently untenable. 1(b). Whether the LD CIT(A) has erred in holding that it was a case of a bonafide error not amounting to furnishing of inaccurate particulars and that case is covered by the decision in Price Water House Coopers Vs CIT [348 ITR 306 (SC)], not appreciating the fact that the said case did not lay down any general proposition to the effect that penalty is not to be levied in all cases of so-called error. 1(ba). The Ld CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the decision in the case of Price Water House Coopers turned on the peculiar fact situation involved therein, as…

Rajee Patwa, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1734/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodrajee Patwa Income Tax Officer-25(3)(3) B-1102, Parimal Appts, Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp Roopdar “D” Bldg. Mumbai. Vs. Gulmohar Road, Near Juhu Lane, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400056 Pan – Abupl4599G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)(c)

…same may not suffer from any mistake or omission, but at the same time scope for a bonafide mistake cannot be ruled out. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). The Hon‟ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had observed that imposition of penalty would be unwarranted in a case where the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bonafide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. We though are in agreement with the observations of th…

Divya Siraslewala, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 14(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6149/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodshri Divya Sirsalewala Acit-14(2), 204, A-Z Industrial Estate, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 302, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. Earnest House, Nariman Point Lower Parel (W), Mumbai. Mumbai-400 013 Pan – Aabps4001Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, D.R
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…take on the part of his accountant, hence no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was called for in his hands on the said count. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment had observed that imposition of penalty would be unwarranted in a case where the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bonafide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. Rather, in the case before us the assessee on learning…

Vip Clothing Limited, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2889/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2889/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vip Clothing Ltd. (Formerly बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-1, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Known As Maxwell Vs. Industries Ltd.) Plaza, Near Mohan Pride, Vip Compound, Kon Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Village, Bhiwandi-Kalyan Kalyan(W). Road, Tal. Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane, Pin-421302 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm1549A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra ( Dr) Assessee By: Subodh L. Ratnaparkhi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Aurangabad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirm. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Subodh L. RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra ( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2889/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) VIP Clothing Ltd. (Formerly बिधम/ DCIT, Circle-1, Kalyan, 1st Floor, Mohan Known as Maxwell Vs. Industries Ltd.) Plaza, Near Mohan Pride, VIP Compound, Kon Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Village, Bhiwandi-Kalyan Kalyan(W). Road, Tal. Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane, PIN-421302 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCM1549A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra ( DR) Assessee by: Subodh L. Ra…

DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rusan Pharma Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3158/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-13(3)(1), Room No. M/S Rusan Pharma 229, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. 58-D, Rusan Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, House, Govt. Indl. Mumbai-20. Estate, Charkop, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 Pan No. Aabcr3179H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Prakash Pandit, Ar Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Pandit, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT-13(3)(1), Room No. M/s Rusan Pharma 229, 2nd floor, Ltd. 58-D, Rusan Vs. AayakarBhavan, M.K. Road, House, Govt. Indl. Mumbai-20. Estate, Charkop, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 PAN No. AABCR3179H Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, DR Assessee by : Mr. Prakash Pandit, AR Date of Hearing : 10/10/2018 Date of pronouncement : 23/10/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the revenue. The relevant ass…

Shailendra Nahar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 260/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.260/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Mr. Shailendra Nahar Acit 25(2) 201, H Panchavan C-10, 412 Bkc Complex, Complex, Mumbai-400051 V. Laxman Mhatre Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aavpn1018L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “G” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.260/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Mr. Shailendra Nahar ACIT 25(2) 201, H Panchavan C-10, 412 BKC Complex, Complex, Mumbai-400051 v. Laxman Mhatre Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAVPN1018L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal Revenue by : Shri. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 10…

Shreechand Builders P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1984/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sh.R. C. Sharma, Am& Hon‟Ble Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 801B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON‟BLE SH.R. C. SHARMA, AM& HON‟BLE SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1984/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shreechand Builders Pvt. Ltd. ITO 9(3)(1) B-50 Badrinath Appartments I.T. Offices, Aayakar बिधम/ Shimpoli Rd., Borivali (west) Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 092 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AAFCS8512B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1982/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shreechand Builders & ITO 9(3)(1) Developers Pvt.…

Institute of Haematology, New Delhi vs. ITO (E), Ward- 1(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 453/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 453/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Institute Of Haematology, Vs Income Tax Officer(E), 11/6-B, Shanti Chambers, Pusa Ward-1(2), Road, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaati4626P Assessee By : Sh. T. R. Talwar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.08.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-40, Delhi. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Relates To The Sustenance Of Penalty Of Rs.68,598/- Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. T. R. Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 453/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Institute of Haematology, Vs Income Tax Officer(E), 11/6-B, Shanti Chambers, Pusa Ward-1(2), Road, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAATI4626P Assessee by : Sh. T. R. Talwar, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2018 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 02.08.2017 of ld. CIT(A)-40, Delhi. 2. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal re…

Swift Knit Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 533/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.533/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ulars of income. According to the ld.counsel for the assessee it was an inadvertent mistake committed by the accountant while filing the return. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) . On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue authorities and contended it is a deliberate attempt at the end of the assessee for not disclosing the capital gain earned by it on sale of asset. 5. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the record. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct…

ACIT(It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Joy Partnership Mining Centre, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1325/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am A.C.I.T. (International Taxation), Vs. M/S Joy Partnership Mining Circle-1 (2), Kolkata Centre Room No-206, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 85/1 Topsia Road, ( South) Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700046 Kolkata-7000107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfj 6427 H (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri G.Hangshing, CITFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Lal, AR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

…as not disputed that it was a bona fide mistake on the part of the respondent-assessee. In that view of the matter, imposition of penalty was not warranted.” We also note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PricewaterhouseCoopers P.Ltd vs CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 has held that no penalty could be levied in case the assessee had not mistakenly furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case held as follows : "It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed t…

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Akzo Nobel Coatings India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2365/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

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

…AY 2010-11 first instance itself, reveals that it was an inadvertent error on the part of assessee company and, therefore, does not warrant levying penalty. In a similar case the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), held that where the assessee has made an inadvertent and a bonafide error and has not intended to conceal the particulars of income, penalty need not be levied. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we hold that there was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee and since the provision for employee’s benefit was…

DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Akzo Nobel Coatings India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2364/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

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

…AY 2010-11 first instance itself, reveals that it was an inadvertent error on the part of assessee company and, therefore, does not warrant levying penalty. In a similar case the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), held that where the assessee has made an inadvertent and a bonafide error and has not intended to conceal the particulars of income, penalty need not be levied. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we hold that there was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee and since the provision for employee’s benefit was…

Exedy India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1443/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1443/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Exedy India Ltd. (Earlier बिधम/ Dcit Osd(1), Aayakar Known As Ceekay Daikin Bhavan Mumbai-400020. Vs. Ltd. Nkm Intl. House, 4Th Floor, 178 B.M. Chinai Marg. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca0200D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Justin ( Dr) Assessee By: Shri H.N. Motiwalla सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2007- 08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The C Of Assessing Officer Levying Penalty Of Rs,9,43,550/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The Assessment Year 2007-And Rejecting The Appeal Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri H.N. MotiwallaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin ( DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1443/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Exedy India Ltd. (earlier बिधम/ DCIT OSD(1), Aayakar Known as Ceekay Daikin Bhavan Mumbai-400020. Vs. Ltd. NKM Intl. House, 4th Floor, 178 B.M. Chinai Marg. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACA0200D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri V. Justin ( DR) Assessee by: Shri H.N. Motiwalla सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 18.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29…