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

Mulay Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 78/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…art of Chartered Accountant, the penalty should not be fastened on the assessee. In support of his submissions the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another reported as 348 ITR 306 (SC); ii. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others, 118 ITR 507 (SC); iii. DCIT Vs. M/s. Narayani Ispat Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 2127/Kol/2014 for assessment year 2010-11 decided on 30-08-2017 (Kol.-Trib.). 3. On the other hand Dr. Vivek Aggarwal representing the Department vehemently defended the order of Commissioner of…

Apexx Texpro Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. M/S. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4891/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri V.K. Jain & Vikas SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…el/2012 (ITAT Del); (ii) CIT vs Societex (2012) 259 CTR 325 6 (Del); (iii) B.L. International vs ACIT, (ITA No.1590/Del/2014)(ITAT Delhi); (iv) CIT vs. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom); (v) Price Waterhouse Coopers P. Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC); and (vi) CIT vs. Sania Mirza (2013) 259 CTR 386 (AP HC) in support of the principle that it is possible that the assesse could make even silly mistakes and in the absence of any misrepresentation of facts, the penalty cannot be sustained. 9. In this matter, we are convinced with the fact that though the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) was i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 243/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. D.R

Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(7)

…r under appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) considered that it is a controversial issue because appellate authorities have taken different views and relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 306 (SC) in which it was held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable in spite of the fact that assessee did not offer provision for gratuity u/s. 40A(7) for disallowance in spite of the same being shown as disallowance in Tax Audit Report. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v…

Nse It Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5935/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5935/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बिाम/ M/S. Nse. It Ltd, Dcit 8(2), Mumbai Trade Globe, Ground Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, V. Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn0159P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil NahtaFor Respondent: Shri. T.A Khan(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Private Ltd. reported in (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) and also decision of Supreme Court in the case of Price Water Coopers P. Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2012) 348 ITR 306(SC), and also relied upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd. in ITA no. 1332 of 2011 order dated 21st March 2013. 6. We have considered rival contentions and have perused material on record including case laws relied upon by rival parties. We have observed that the assessee is engaged in the busine…

Shri Vishnu Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 694/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: None (Written submissions)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…no.2) 341 ITR 235 (Karn) • CIT vs. Sangeeta Leasing 343 ITR 428 (Delhi) • CIT vs. Sadhu Singh & Sons 344 ITR 316 (P &H) • CIT vs. Lakhani Footwear Ltd. 347 ITR 478 (P &H) • Mehsons Export Vs. ITO 347 ITR 639 (All) • Price Water House Coopers pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) • CIT vs. Amit Jain 351 ITR 74 (Delhi) • CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. 352 ITR 394 (P &H) 3 Vishnu Kumar Bhargava vs. ITO • CIT vs. P. rojes 356 ITR 703 (Mad) • Naresh Chandra Agrawal vs. CIT 357 ITR 514 (All) • CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn) • CIT vs. Krishi Tyer Retreading & Rubber Ind. 360 ITR 580 (Raj.) • CIT v…

Anant Mate, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1674/PUN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1674 To 1678/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2008-09 & 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(5)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…n 393 ITR 1 (Delhi) and also placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in T Ashok Pai Vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC), CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT & Anr. (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). The written submissions filed by the assessee are placed in Paper Book. 8. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, pointed out that the issue raised by assessee in written submissions is covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prasanna Dugar Vs. CIT (2016) 70 taxmann.com 1…

ITO Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Regency International Clothing P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1528/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Rajendra, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1528/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Satish R. Mody

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SH. RAJENDRA, AM & SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1528/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Regency International ITO Ward 3(3)(1), बिधम/ Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Star House, Urmi Estate 77 Nariman Bhavna, 227 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Vs. Nariman Point, Marg, Lower Parel (w), Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AABCN1401A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Satish R. Mody सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.02.18 Date of Hea…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shri Rashmikant Venilal Mehta, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 2113/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri M. Sri Lisha Stebila Theras, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…re was omission, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that such an omission cannot be construed as concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of such income. In view of the judgment of Apex Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306, it is an inadvertent omission to disclose the income. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above, we are unable to uphold the orders of the authorities below. Accordingly, both the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the penalty levie…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shri Rashmikant Venilal Mehta, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 2112/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri M. Sri Lisha Stebila Theras, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

Rashmikant Venilal Mehta, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 1823/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri M. Sri Lisha Stebila Theras, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

Rashmikant Venilal Mehta, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

ITA 1822/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri M. Sri Lisha Stebila Theras, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

Ajay Kumar Baid, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5946/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008 - 2009 Ajay Kumar Baid Income Tax Officer 14(3)(1) 1St Floor, Chandra Mahal, Mumbai बनाम/ 241, Princess Street, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue P.A. No. Aaapb5350N

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…bmitted before us that debiting of the foreign exchange loss to arrive its non-tonnage income, was a mistake and no penalty be imposed for the mistake committed. Reliance was placed upon the Apex Court's decision in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd., v/s. CIT 348 ITR 306 to contend that mistakes made by an assessee cannot be the basis for imposition of penalty. In the above view, it is submitted that the appeal be admitted. 9 From the record it is clear that the notice under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued to the appellant on 14th January, 2009. The notice also contains an annexure, seeking det…

DCIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S P C Chandra (Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1197/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…had been disclosed by the appellant. I find that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant to conceal its income by making a wrong claim on account of the impugned depreciation. The case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) as narrated supra squrely coveres the case of the appellant as well. Furthermore, the jurisdicioial Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata under similar circumstances, as narrated supra, has waived the penalty impose u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by taking into consideration the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158…

Vigilance Security Services (P) Ltd., Sec'Bad, Hyderabad vs. ACIT (OSD), Range-3, Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 35/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri Y. Ratnakar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…as assessee has voluntarily filed the computation and paid the taxes and hence the wrong claim made by assessee should not be punished. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT and Another [348 ITR 306] (SC) for the mistake in giving I.T.A. No. 35/Hyd/2016 :- 5 -: advise by the Counsel and also on the decision of CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts Limited (322 ITR 158) (SC) that a wrong claim cannot be considered for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 7. Ld.DR, however, submitted that penalty is warranted as assessee has filed NIL return, even thou…

M.Jagabar Nisha Ummal, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 611/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…at non-disclosure of bank interest of mere Rs.10,846/- is an inadvertent omission on the part of the assessee. In these circumstances relying in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT & others reported in 348 ITR 306, we are of the considered view that the case of the assessee is not fit for levy of penalty. Therefore we hereby direct the Ld.AO to delete the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on the assessee. 7. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 17th January, 2018 at Chennai. (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (N.R.…

Bhelsia Design Cluster, Chennai vs. ITO, Trichy

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

ITA 2735/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

Section 271(1)(d)

…sion that this was a mistake on the part of the assessee and that all facts were placed before the AO. It was a submission that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2012] 348 ITR 306, penalty as levied may be cancelled. :- 3 -: 5. In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the Assessment Order shows that the AO has recorded the expenses on account of the hospitality and gifts was incurred in relation to the meeting held in a hote…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Celebrity Fashions Ltd., Chennai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed,

ITA 38/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri.S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. G. Ganesan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 40Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/I.T.A. No.38/Mds/2017 & C.O.No.33/Mds/2017 (in ITA No.38/Mds/2017) "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Celebrity Fashions Ltd, SDF, IV and C2, 3rd Main Road, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2) MEPZ/SEZ, Tambaram, Chennai 600 034 Chennai 600 045. [PAN AAACC 3696D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent / Cr…

ITO, Haridwar vs. M/S. Mahima Udyog, Uttrakhand

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2013/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

…le for deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act and therefore, bona fide of the claim cannot be doubted and for such an innocent claim, no penalty can be levied. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. V. CIT, 348 ITR 306 and various other decisions as relied by assessee in her written synopsis. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the entire material on record, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has made reasoned order and it does not call for any interference. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty observing as under : “8. I have duly considered the facts…

Sheth & Co, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set-aside and the Assessing

ITA 198/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (CIT-DR)

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

…Term Capital Gain on the sale of units of Mutual Fund was an inadvertent error and a mistake. On this aspect also, we find that following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), this being a case of bona fide and an inadvertent 4 M/s. Sheth & Co. mistake, which does not call for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the same is hereby directed to be deleted. 6. The last element of the levy of penalty is with respect to difference of Rs.93,815/- between the amount shown in 26AS and the computation of income…

Akruti Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7385/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deym/S. Aakruti Investments Ltd. B–1/504, Marathon Innova Opp. Peninsula Corporate Park ……………. Appellant Ganapat Rao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan Aabca2579C V/S Income Tax Officer 6(1)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg ……………. Respondent Mumbai 400020 Appellant By : Shri S.C. Tiwari & Shri Rutuja Pawar Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…omission on the part of the assessee being due to a bona fide and inadvertent error penalty should not be imposed. In support of such contention he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers P. Ltd. v/s. CIT 348 ITR 306. He also relied upon the following decisions: – i. CIT v/s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). ii. UOI v/s Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Civil Appeal no. 3527 of 2009 (SC). iii. Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC) iv. CIT v/s S.M. Construction, ITA no. 412 of 2013 (Bom) v. CIT v/s Dalmia Dychem Industries Ltd. (…