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 366,005 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

Smt. Gayathri Balasubramaniam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2972/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.R. Duraipandian, Sr.AR

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

…t by mistake under the wrong impression that, the interest was on earlier loan which was which was availed for purchase of property. The Ld.AR also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Private Ltd. Vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) and also the coordinate bench of ITAT “B” in ITA No.1229/Mds/2016 in the case of ACIT vs. M/s.FL Smidh Ltd., Chennai. 5.2 On the other hand, the Ld.DR argued that it was a deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to make a false claim u/s.24(b) of the Act. The Ld.DR argued that during the course of assessment proceedings the assess…

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Kodak India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1533/MUM/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.1533/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year :1997-98) Dcit-10(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kodak India Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, B-Wing, Vinay Bhavya Complex, 159A, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz, Mumbai - 400098 Pan/Gir No. Aaack2172J Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ant had clearly stated that it is inadvertent mistake hence, penalty should not be levied. The A.O. disagreeing with the submissions of the appellant levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c). Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) held that when there is a bonafide and inadvertent mistake penalty should not be levied. Further in CIT vs. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. 352 ITR 592 (Born) wherein it is held as under: "The Tribunal held that the excess depreciation claimed for the assessment year 2003-04 was on account of bonafide and inadvertent mistake on the part of the as…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Family Health Plan (Tpa) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1233/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1233/Mds/2016 & C.O. No. 137/Mds/2016 (In I.T.A. No.1233/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Family Health Plan (Tpa) Ltd., Income Tax, V. Block G, Iii Floor, Ali Towers, Corporate Circle 2(1), 22, Greams Road, Chennai - 600034. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacf 1740 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent & Co-Objector)

For Appellant: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, CA

Section 271(1)(c)

…me was 3 I.T.A. No.1233/Mds/16 C.O. No.137/Mds/16 reflected in Form 26AS, the assessee has not claimed any credit for TDS. Therefore, it is an inadvertent omission. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306, the Ld. representative submitted that a human error has happened in the present case. It is a bona fide inadvertent error. Had the assessee intended to conceal the income, it would not have disclosed `22,15,833/- and it would have claimed credit for TDS amount also. Admittedly, the TDS credit was not claimed and the assessee disclosed `22,15,83…

Ashish Pal Singh Arneja, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3485/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2011-12 Ashish Pal Singh Arneja, Ito, Bh-45, Poorvi Shalimar Bagh, Vs. Ward-72(4), New Delhi. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Afipa6803L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Department By : None Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2016 Order

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: None

Section 271(1)(c)

…on, there was a reasonable and bona fide ground for the assessee in not disclosing the correct income of salary and, simultaneously, not taking credit for the TDS on such amount. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) should be imposed for a bona fide mistake or a normal human error. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd. (2013) 352 ITR 592 (Bom). The ld. AR has also placed on record a copy of the order dated 27.7.2016 passed by the 3 Delhi Bench of…

Sunanda V Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5834/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5834/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Mrs. Sunanda V. Agarwala, Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ Damini, Flat No. 301, 21(2)(4), V. 3 Rd Floor, C-10, 5 Th Floor, Juhu Tara Road, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Juhu, Bkc, Bandra (East), Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 051. Mumbai – 400 049. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ablpa9852A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav (D.R.)

Section 10(38)Section 112(1)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

….2012: 4. Shri Vikramaditya Singh v DCIT (ITA 188/Asr/2014) dated 16.11.2015: 5. ACIT v Amit Bajaj (ITA 7707/M/2010) dated 3.8.2012: 6. Asia Management & Consultancy Pvt: Ltd. v ACIT (ITA 1916/M/2010) dated 13.4.2011: 7. Price Waterhouse Coopers P. Ltd. v CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) 8. CIT v Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 (SC). The ld. Counsel submitted that the above case laws clearly shows that no penalty is leviable as the facts are identical. ITA 5834/Mum/2013 6 6. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and also relied on the judicial decisions in the case of Union of India & Ors v. Dharmendra Te…

The Ballabgarh Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Ballabgarh vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 437/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mathur, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2(31)Section 271(1)(c)Section 72A

…proceedings. Since, it was a mistake/bonafide error on the part of the Counsel for Assessee, penalty need not be imposed. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water Coopers Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs., Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC). 9 ITA.No.437/Del./2014 The Ballabgarh Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Ballabgarh. 7. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that in case the return would not have been selected for scrutiny assessment,…

Meriton Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1250/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 1250/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

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

…rs Circles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA No. 5112/Del/2014 in which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as imposed on account of ROC fee has claimed for increasing authorised capital was deleted relying on the following judgments: (i) Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) 348 ITR 306 (ii) CIT(A) Vs. Societex ITA No. 1190/2011 Delhi High Court (iii) Hindustan Steel Vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC) 8. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is pertinent to note that the assessee never concealed or filed inaccurate particulars. After knowing that there was m…

Suresh Prasad Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6031/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6031/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Suresh Prasad Aggarwal, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income P-8, Green Park Extension, Tax, Circle-37(1), New Delhi-110016 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapa3267H Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.09.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxviii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR

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

…that simply on this basis that a claim made by the assessee did not find favour with the AO, is not sufficient to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The reliance was place on the following case laws: " Price Water House Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) " CIT Vs Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) " Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) " CIT Vs Ultimate Fashin Maker Ltd. (HC) " CIT Vs B.R. Sharma (2005) 196 CTR 454 (Del) " CIT Vs Globe Sales Corporation (2005) 196 CTR 187 (Del) " CIT Vs Auto Lamps Ltd. (2005) 196 CTR 459 (Del) 6 Suresh Prasad Aggarwal " State of M.P Vs Bharat…

Vidhi Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 5794/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz.

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. M. Doss, CIT D.R

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

…in technical ITA No.5794/Mum/13 A.Y. 09-10 [Vidhi Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT) Page 4 point, Assessing Officer could have advised correct path to be adopted. We find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 306 (SC) held as under: “In this case the assessee has filed the return of income and claimed the deduction of provision for payment of gratuity. In the tax audit report of the assessee, the auditor had stated that this deduction was not allowable. Still it was deducted while computing the income. The A.O initiated the penalty proceeding for furnishi…

Raj Dutta, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 930/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: S/Shri Parag Mohanty and Vikas Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR

Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.930/Del./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) Shri Raj Dutta, vs. JCIT, Range 48, L – 1/18, 2nd Floor, New Delhi. Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi. (PAN : AADPD1490J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/Shri Parag Mohanty and Vikas Srivastava, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 02.08.2016 Date of Order : 12.08.2016 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, Shri Raj Dutta (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’), b…

Smt. Romi Lahiri, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-51, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Goutam Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…whether the wrong calculation on the basis of the mistaken indexation could be treated to be an indirect concealment or a wrong furnishing of particulars.” 5. Reliance is also placed on a decision reported in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC) for the principle that the assessee should have been careful but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, did not mean that the assessee was guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. Lastly. the decision reported in CIT v. HIRALAL DOSHI [2016] 383 ITR 19 (Bom) to demonstrate that w…

Kamani Oil Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1917/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1917/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S Kamani Oil Industriesl बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 6(2),Mumbai Pvt.Ltd.,317, Pooran Asha Vs. Building, Narsi Natha St.,Masjit, Mumbai-400009 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 35D

…Vs Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (SC) and the case law relied by the ld.CIT(A) in the case of MAK Data Limited(supra). In defence, the ld.counsel of the assessee relied upon the number of decisions namely: a) Price Waterhouse Coopes P Ltd V/s CIT (348 ITR 306(SC); b) CIT V/s Reliance Petroproduct Pvt.Ltd -322 ITR 158 (SC); c) CIT V/s Aditya Birla Nova Limited (82 CCH 206 (Bom) etc; 6. The ld. DR vehemently opposed the submissions of the ld. AR and heavily relied on the orders of authorities below. The ld. DR submitted that wrong claim was made with the intention to suppress the profit of the assessee…

ITO 26(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Sonia Sanjay Sethi, Mumbai

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

ITA 4674/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta No. 4674/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Ito-26(1)(1), Smt. Sonia Sanjay Sethi, बनाम/ Mumbai 5, 1St Floor, Yashodhan, Vs. Dinshaw Vachha Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev KashyapFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Ghosh

Section 139(1)Section 192Section 271(1)(c)

…oto disclosed the salary from IDFC Bank interest and capital gain in its return of income. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)erred on relying on Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd Vs CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) without considering that the facts are totally different”. 3. Before going into the merits of the case, we consider CBDT’s latest instructions vide Circular No.21/2015 dated 10/12/2015, the relevant portion of which read as under:- “ Circular No. 21/2015 F No 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ (Pt) Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of…

Purvi Ahuja, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 36, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 399/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2007-08 Purvi Ahuja, Acit-Cc-47, 902, Shabari Ashiana, Mumbai Vs. Lal Jd Gupta Marg Deonar, Mumbai – 400 008 Pan: Aafpa0758E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri K. Ravikiran, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravikiran, D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80

…ew, there seemed no deliberate intention of the assessee to conceal the income or to furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. The proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT” (2012) 348 ITR 306 3 Purvi Ahuja (SC) is applicable to the case of the assessee wherein it has been held that the penalty is not leviable if the mistake is bonafide and due to inadvertent error. 6. Considering the above facts of the case of assessee and the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), we do not find it a fit case for levy of…

Mangalam Shipping & Logistics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee against impugned order for the Asst

ITA 7612/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Tasneem VarawalaFor Respondent: Shri. B. Satyaramayana Rajo

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

…is no scope to interfere with the impugned order. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Reliance Petro products P Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158, Price waterhouse coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 and decision rendered by the ITAT Mumbai in Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. vs DCIT(2010) 42 SOT325 and Walter Saldhana vs DCIT (2011)44 SOT 26 in support of his arguments. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the documents in the light of respective submissions of the parties. We notice that the issue involved in the fir…

Mangalam Shipping & Logistics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee against impugned order for the Asst

ITA 7611/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. Tasneem VarawalaFor Respondent: Shri. B. Satyaramayana Rajo

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

Akeel A Master, Mumbai vs. DCIT 20(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2283/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Akeel A. Master, Dcit-20(1), 1501/04, Lokhandwala Galaxy, Mumbai Keshavrao Khadey Marg, Vs. Byculla, Mumbai – 400 011 Pan: Aafpm 3995H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar, A.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar, A.R

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…the same during the assessment proceedings. In our view, it is not a case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT” (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) is applicable to the case of the assessee wherein it has been held that the penalty is not leviable if the mistake is bonafide and due to inadvertent error. 6. In view of our above findings, the penalty levied by the lower authorities is hereby ordered to be deleted. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. Order pro…

Qpro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2197/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Qpro Infotech Ltd., Dcit 2(3) Ratnajyot 1-B, Mumbai बनाम/ Pushpam, 30E, Vs. Cawasji Patel Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacq0953H Appellant By Shri Dharmesh Shah ( Ar) Revenue By Capt. Pradeep S. Arya ( Sr. Dr)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…f his arguments that no penalty should be levied on this case. 1. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd [322 ITR 158]. 2.Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd v. CIT & Ors [348 ITR 3061 3. Order of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of B. Melaram & Sons v. ACIT [ITA No.5143/Mum/2014] dated 25.02.2016 for A.Y. 2008-09. 4. Order of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of ACIT v. Mangalya Trading & I nvestments Ltd [ITA No. 4165/Mum/2011] dated 20.04.2012. 5. Order of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of Shri Rajesh Mulchand Joshi v ITO [I…

Hewitt Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd.., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

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

…very preliminary stage, the Asst. Order having been passed on 29.3.06. It was a bona fide mistake of oversight, not warranting the levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c). As recently held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. V CIT (2012) 25 Taxmann.com 400 (SC), that it would be unjustified to levy penalty for filing inaccurate particulars on such an apparent & bona fide ‘Computation error’ of this nature, of not adding back ‘Provision for Gratuity’ in the case of the return of a reputed professional firm of C.A’s. 6. On the issue of levy of penalty on unsubstantiated bad debts written o…

Rachna Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5359/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel &For Respondent: None

Section 271(1)(c)

…in the Schedule of fixed assets as per Companies Act before the AO. It was only an inadvertent mistake committed in calculating the amount of depreciation under the Income-tax Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pricewater House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), has held that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed for a bona fide mistake or a normal human error. In that case, disallowance was 3 reported in the Tax Audit Report, but, by inadvertence, it was not there in the return of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held it to be a bona fide mistake not attracting any penalty. The facts of the…