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 366,314 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

Sh. Keshav Misra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5903/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K.N. Charry

For Appellant: S/Shri Gagan Kumar, Amit Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(7)

…t of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as the income returned has been accepted after due scrutiny. In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Price Warehouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (S.C.). 3. Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the authorities below. He stated that had the case not been selected for scrutiny, the assessee would have been in a position to claim wrong carry forward of loss which could have been set off in the subsequent year whenever there would have been long term capital gain. Thus, ther…

Gvk Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Mar 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Manish Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Shri Prakash Meena (JCIT)
Section 271(1)(c)

…It is submitted that it was because of the error which resulted in claiming the exempt income. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers 3 M/s. GVK Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. The Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that on the p…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I vs. M/S Sheela Foam (P) Ltd

ITA/825/2016HC Delhi28 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 271Section 80

…TAT’s reasoning was that the assessee had made a claim for 100% deduction bona fide, based upon the auditor’s computation. It cited and relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 348 ITR 306 (SC). This Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in this case. Admittedly, the assessee was eligible and did claim 100% deduction for the previous five years and in accordance with the relevant provisions was entitled to 30% deduction only from the year in question, i.e., AY 2004-05. The explanation offered by…

Hazorilal & Sons Jewellers P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4062/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-4060/Del/2014 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A .No.-4061/Del/2014 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A .No.-4062/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…rect and no bogus claim is there. The testimony to this fact is that there were no additions to the returned income but for these small inadvertent errors. 9. The Ld. AR further relied upon the Supreme Court decision in case of PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS v CIT 348 ITR 306(SC). In this case Return of income was filed declaring income of RS 24.42 crores. It was a case of internationally acclaimed consultancy company. In the return of income provision made for gratuity was not added back. In the Tax Audit Report, the Auditor has pointed out such disallowance. The same was not disallowed in the return of income. When…

Hazorilal & Sons Jewellers P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4061/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-4060/Del/2014 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A .No.-4061/Del/2014 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A .No.-4062/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…rect and no bogus claim is there. The testimony to this fact is that there were no additions to the returned income but for these small inadvertent errors. 9. The Ld. AR further relied upon the Supreme Court decision in case of PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS v CIT 348 ITR 306(SC). In this case Return of income was filed declaring income of RS 24.42 crores. It was a case of internationally acclaimed consultancy company. In the return of income provision made for gratuity was not added back. In the Tax Audit Report, the Auditor has pointed out such disallowance. The same was not disallowed in the return of income. When…

Hazorilal & Sons Jewellers P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-4060/Del/2014 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A .No.-4061/Del/2014 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A .No.-4062/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…rect and no bogus claim is there. The testimony to this fact is that there were no additions to the returned income but for these small inadvertent errors. 9. The Ld. AR further relied upon the Supreme Court decision in case of PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS v CIT 348 ITR 306(SC). In this case Return of income was filed declaring income of RS 24.42 crores. It was a case of internationally acclaimed consultancy company. In the return of income provision made for gratuity was not added back. In the Tax Audit Report, the Auditor has pointed out such disallowance. The same was not disallowed in the return of income. When…

ITO, Tiruppur vs. Smt. R. Balamani, Tiruppur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2737/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 271(1)(c)

…r, the assessee had only claimed deduction u/s. 10(38) of the Act by ignorance on her part or it being a mistake committed by her accountant. At this juncture, we are reminded of the case M/s.Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT & others reported in 348 ITR 306 wherein the Hon’ble Apex court observed the facts and decided the case as follows: “The facts of the case were peculiar and somewhat unique. All that had happened was that through a bonafide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return failed to add the provisions for gratuity to its total income. The assessee should have bee…

Narayan Heights & Towers, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1033/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…decision of the coordinate bench rendered in the case of GTO Vs. Rajmata Shanti Devi(2001) 76 ITR 299 (Ahd) and also place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT and another 348 ITR 306 (SC). He further submitted that the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, was passed on the basis of information supplied by the assessee. So, it is not the case where the assessee has deliberately concealed the material particulars. In support of this Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to profit and loss account and the…

Murli Dodeja, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3848/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3847/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3848/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Murli Dodeja, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Shop No. 1, Ward 21(3)(3), V. Kipwala Compound, Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakivihar Road, Bandra, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400050. Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Afupd1268G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “I” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3847/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3848/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Murli Dodeja, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Shop No. 1, Ward 21(3)(3), v. Kipwala Compound, Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakivihar Road, Bandra, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400050. Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AFUPD1268G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by : M…

Murli Dodeja, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3847/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3847/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3848/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Murli Dodeja, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Shop No. 1, Ward 21(3)(3), V. Kipwala Compound, Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakivihar Road, Bandra, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400050. Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Afupd1268G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “I” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3847/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3848/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Murli Dodeja, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Shop No. 1, Ward 21(3)(3), v. Kipwala Compound, Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakivihar Road, Bandra, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400050. Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AFUPD1268G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by : M…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Punj Lloyd Industrial Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands statistically allowed

ITA 5745/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri F. R. Meena, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Akshat Jain, CA
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.5745/Del/2013 (Assessment Year 2005-06) DCIT, Circle 14(1), Vs. Punj Lloyd Industrial Ltd., New Delhi. 17-18, Nehru Place, New Delhi -110 019 GIR / PAN :AAACW1168L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri F. R. Meena, Sr. DR Respondent by : Shri Akshat Jain, CA Date of hearing : 10.02.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: The present penalty appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 04/07/13 passed…

Krishna Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 819/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09 cuke Shri Krishna Kumar Gupta The ACIT Vs. E-78, Atish Market Circle- 5 Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACIPG 2043 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri Tanuj Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 02/02/20…

Sachidanand Padgaonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6020/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D Karunakara Rao & Shri Cn Prasad: (A.Y : 2010-11) Shri Sachidanand Padgaonkar Vs. Ito 26(2)(3) 4 Madhukendra Aayakar Bhavan N.C.Kelkar Road Mk Road Dadar New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 028 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan : Aadpp9408J (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dinkle Hariya प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2016 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Dated 19.08.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 In Sustaining The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Yadav
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ing further or without disproving the appellant's claim. It is submitted that such an approach of the AO is in stark contrast and contumacious disregard of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers vis CIT - (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC).  It is submitted that there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee to not disclose the interest income. ” In view of the above submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prays for deletion of penalty. 5. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below in levying and sustaining the penalty on assessee.…

M/S. Mount Everest Mineral Water Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 1498/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…g inaccurate particulars of income, as the amount of doubtful debts was clearly reflected in the books of accounts submitted before the AO. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306(SC). The Assessing Officer did not accept the reply of assessee observing that the alleged mistake is not a bona fide mistake, as it was only during the course of assessment proceedings when the AO specifically pointed out this discrepancy to the assessee, then the assessee accepted the default. Had the Assessing Officer not pointed out this di…

M.Tamilselvan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 2266/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2266/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri M. Tamilselvan, The Income-Tax Officer, No.8, Sabathy Street, V. Business Ward 1(5), Narmada Nagar, Ullagaram, Chennai – 600045. Chennai – 603091. Pan : Abtpt0617L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Duraipandian, Sr. Ar. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per N.R.S. Ganesan:

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Duraipandian, Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)

…ng Officer is not justified in levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. counsel placed his reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v CIT and another in [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC). 3. On the contrary, Shri R. Duraipandian, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the profit on sale of land was not declared by the assessee in the return filed by him. The Assessing Officer received Annual Information Report and the same was communicated to the assessee during the course of assessment 3 I.T.A. No. 2266/Mds/20…

Gvk Jaipur Expressway P Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JPR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri G.R. Pareek (JCIT)
Section 143(3)

…ed to be exempt in the return of income. It is submitted that it was because of the error which resulted in claiming the exempt income. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. The Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that on the…

Smt. Padma Kalani, Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the

ITA 422/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…y levied on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) and u/s 14A was deleted by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Private Limited, 322 ITR 158 (S.C.) and Price Water Coopers Private Limited vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 ( S.C.). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further cited decision of Tribunal in the case of ACIT, Circle 30(1) vs. Manish Jain, I.T.A.No. 5999/Del/12 dated 14.6.2013, wherein penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on I.T.A.Nos. 422/Ind/2015 A.Y.2006-07 –Smt.Padma Kalani, Page 10 of 13 Indore. account of disallowance made u/s 14A read with Rule 8D was d…

Shri Manish Kalani, Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 421/IND/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271A

…articulars regarding income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water Cooper Private Limited vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 ( S.C.). Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee has offered an explanation, which is found to be bona fide and substantiated by the facts relating to the same as disclosed in the returns of income. Therefore, the penalty levied by the CIT(A) in both the assessment years under appeal on account of disallowances of expenses u/s 14A rea…

Shri Saurabh Kalani, Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 420/IND/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271A

…articulars regarding income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. This view is also supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water Cooper Private Limited vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 ( S.C.). Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee has offered an explanation, which is found to be bona fide and substantiated by the facts relating to the same as disclosed in the returns of income. Therefore, the penalty levied by the CIT(A) in both the assessment years under appeal on account of disallowances of expenses u/s 14A rea…

C.Elango, Tiruppur vs. ACIT, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Durai Pandian, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)Section 54F

…nd the Assessing Officer having taxed the sale transaction as the short term capital gains and accepted by the assessee cannot be a valid reason for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and we rely on the decision of Price Waterhouse Cooper Ltd Vs CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC), wherein, it held that the imposition of penalty would be unwarranted in the case the where assessee has committed an inadvertent and bonafide error and we takes support from Hon'ble Supreme Court decision of CIT Vs Reliance Petro Products, 322 ITR 158(SC) where it was held that merely because the assessee claimed deduction, not accepted b…