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

Ideal Unemployed Engineers Co-Operative Society Ltd., Coochbihar vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 2, Jalpaiguri

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2460/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2010-11

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

…basis of such invalid show cause notice cannot be sustained. Reference was also made to several judicial pronouncements. In particular, our attention was drawn to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) wherein it was held inadvertent errors in the return of income filed cannot be the basis to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. On the other hand L’d DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 6. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. The facts go to show that the AO came to know that the Assessee had not dis…

M/S. Sheela Foadm (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5902/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Sheela Foam (P.) Ltd., C-55, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Preet Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi Tax, Circle-8(1), New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacs0189B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Ajay Vohra & Gaurav Jain, Advocates; Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/08/1012 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2004-05 In Respect Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Order Dated 27.03.2009 Passed By The Assessing Officer Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1 )(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio. 1.1 That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Penalty Order Under Section 271(1 )(C) Was Beyond Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab-Initio, In As Much As The Same Was Initiated On Issues For Which No Prima Facie Satisfaction, Qua Concealment/Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Was Discernible From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Without Prejudice 2. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

…asis of the bona fides mistakes of the consultant/auditors. In support of the 6 AY: 2004-05 proposition, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 348 ITR 306 (SC). Further, he submitted that no penalty could be levied where disallowance/addition is made on account of bona fide mistake. In support of the proposition, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Arvind Nagpal in ITA No. 481/2013. The learned Authorized Representative also relied on the judgment of the…

Ms. Leela Mondal, North 24 Parganas vs. I.T.O, WD -50(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2383/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: ShriH. K. Mridha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and penalty is cancelled. The appeal stands allowed accordingly." 5. The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 306 (SC), wherein it was held as under:- “In this case the Tax Audit Report was filed along with the return and in unequivocally stated that the provision for payment was not allowable under section 40A(7) of the Act. The assessee however file to add back the sum in its computation of income. Moreover it was not even noticed by the assessing Office…

Gautam Kumar Mitra, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 54, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 07/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 44A

…he view that the imposition of penalty on the aforesaid addition cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be cancelled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 12 13 Sri Gautam Kumar Mitra A.Yr.2006-07 case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 25 Taxmann.com 400 (SC) was dealing with a case of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)( c) of the Act when there are bona-fide and inadvertent errors. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in such circumstances, no penalty can be imposed. The learned DR however pointed out that in the aforesaid case, the Assessee filed a revised return of income but the Assessee…

Dinesh K. Tiwari, Mumbai vs. DCIT 26(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4336/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Sing

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…alty under section 271(1)(c) should not have been imposed. For such proposition, learned Authorised Representative relied upon a number of decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT & Anr., [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC). 5. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5 Shri Dinesh K. Tiwari 6. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. Though, there is no dispute to the fact that in the return of income and computation made…

Ashok Juneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5315/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Prashant Maharishi

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

…ns and perused the material available on record. Considering the judicial precedent as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt.Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) and Price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT & Another (2012) 348 ITR 306, we find that Page 2 of 3 I.T.A .No.-5315/Del/2013 the consistent explanation offered by the assessee that the mistake has so occurred as a result of a typographical error deserves to be accepted. There is nothing on record to show that the explanation offered should not be considered to be bonafide. Being a plausible explanation in the peculia…

Mrs. Vinita Pahwa, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6134/DEL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.R. Sonbhadra, Senior DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…particulars of income to further conceal the income. Moreover, the AO has never disputed the audited balance sheet and books of account relied upon by the assessee. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment cited as Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – 348 ITR 306 (SC) dealt with the identical issue and returned findings as under :- “Held, allowing the appeal, that the facts of the case were peculiar and somewhat unique. Notwithstanding that the assessee was a reputed firm and had great expertise available with it, it was possible that even the assessee could make a "silly" mistake. The fact that the tax…

Rajesh Mulchand Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1448/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Hiten VasantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 24Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.1448/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2008–09) Shri Rajesh Mulchand Joshi 25, Sneh Sadan, 2nd Floor Opp. Colaba P.O., Colaba ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 005 PAN – ACPPJ6313C v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–12(2)(4), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Assessee by : Shri Hiten Vasant Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap Date of Hearing – 18.04.2016 Date of Order – 22.04.2016 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Instant appeal of the assessee is directe…

M/S. Jindal Steel & Power Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…tifying the amount. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the appellant concealed/ furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of aforesaid addition.” 7.6 Reliance was placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. v CIT 348 ITR 306 and jurisdictional High court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT v Siddharta Enterprsies 322 ITR 80. Reliance in support was also drawn on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT v Punjab Kesari Hosiery Factory 304 ITR 247 to contend that penalty is not leviable in case of bonafide commission in no…

ITO 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Pramukh Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2244/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2244/M/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Income Tax Officer 20(2)(3) M/S. Pramukh Enterprises बनाम/ Piramal Chamber, 16/2, Matru Mandir, Jawahar Vs. Room No. 411, 4Th Floor, Nagar No.2, Goregaon Lalbaug, Parel, (West) Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai - 400062 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagpf02472H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravikiran

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80I

…usion is due to furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the appellant. The phrase “furnishing of inaccurate particulars” and the word “inaccurate” has been discussed at length in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts reported in 348 ITR 306 (SC) and the Court has clarified that it is the details given by any assessee in the return filed that must 3 Assessment Year: 2005-06 provide the basis for the levy of penalty. The court has further stated that in case, there is not finding that the details mentioned in the return are erroneous or false, simple a claim which is found inadmissi…

Best Buildwell (Pvt.) Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5167/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…assessment proceedings and as such, there was neither concealment nor any explanation that was furnished, was found to be false. Ld. AR further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – 348 ITR 306 (SC) to support its claim. He, therefore, prayed that the orders of the authorities below be set aside and the penalty levied be deleted. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We note that the assessee participated in the penalty proceedings and brought to the knowledge of the AO that the loss on sale of fixed as…

M/S. B.L. International, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1590/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava :Asstt. Yrs: 2009-10 M/S B.L. International, Vs. Acit, Circle 24(1), 50/7, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaf 5312 N ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Arora Ca Assessee By : Shri S.L. Anuragi Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2016. Date Of Order : 03/03/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Arora CA

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

…s of a/c was left to be included in the total income, as assessee had already claimed deduction u/s 24(a) while computing income from house property. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 348 ITR 306, wherein it has been held that if there was a bona fide and inadvertent error, then the penalty is not leviable. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record of the case. Facts are not disputed. Admittedly, when the assessee was confronted with the depreciation being claimed on the property, the income from which ha…

Ami Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 803/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri R.S.SinghviFor Respondent: Dr. Pramod Nikalje (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 371(1)

…of income. In 13 ITA No.803/Mum/14 M/s Ami Builders Pvt. Ltd. support of his arguments, ld. counsel relied upon the following judgments: a. CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158(SC). b. Price Waterhouse Coopers P. Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC). c. CIT vs. M/s. S.M. Construction (ITA No. 412/13)[Bombay HC]. d. Smt. Kajal V Mange vs. ITO (ITA No. 6000/D/10) [Del ITAT]. e. Mr. Naresh Kumar vs. ACIT (ITA No. 49/13) [Bombay HC]. f. CIT v. Nalin P. Shah (HUF) (ITA No. 49/13) [Bombay HC]. g. Global Green Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (ITA No. 1390/D/11) [Del ITAT]. Lastly, it was submitted by ld. co…

D.C.I.T.Cir - VIII, Kol, Kolkata vs. Shri Ram Chandra Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

ITA 1700/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. S.S Alam, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)

…a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. “ 5.1.5. In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers P.Ltd vs. CIT reported in (2012) 25 taxmann.com 400/211 Taxman 40/348 ITR 306, wherein it has been held that:- “17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the facts of the case are rather peculiar and somewhat unique. The assessee is undoubtedly a reputed firm and has great expertise available with it. Notwithstanding this, it is possible that even the assessee could make a "silly" mistake a…