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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Dharam Vir Yadav, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 217/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-217/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2005-06)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-217/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005-06) ACIT vs Dharam Vir Yadav Circle-20 (1), Room No. F-308, H-4/9, Vikas Bhawan Model Town New Delhi New Delhi AAAPY1522F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, SR. DR Respondent by Sh. B. L. Gupta, AR Date of Hearing 17.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement 11.01.2016 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by Revenue against the order dated 4/10/2011 by the Revenue passed by the Ld. CIT(A) XVII, New Delhi. 2. The grounds…

M/S Star Gold Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT, Cir -5(3), Mumbai

ITA 2655/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.M. Utture (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(1)Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ई’ खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “E” BENCH सव"ी राजे", लेखा सद" एवं संदीप गोसांई, "ाियक सद" Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Sandeep Gosain,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.2655/M/2013,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 M/s. Star Gold Pvt. Ltd. ACIT- Ward-5(3) Mukund M. Chitale & Co. CA Mumbai. 205,Agarwal,Shyamkamal“A”Building, Vs. Vile-Parle (E),Mumbai-400 057. PAN:AAICS 3712 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Anil Sathe (AR) राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri M.M. Utture (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rang Tarang Paints Corner, Delhi

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 1296/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 6,18,000/- under section 271(1)(c) by relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s Price Waterhouse Cooper Pvt Ltd reported in 348 ITR 306 wherein facts of the case were totally different. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) had erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 6,18,000/- under section 271(1)(C) ignoring the decisions of the Supreme court in the case of MAK DATA Pvt Ltd in which facts were similar to that of the assessee's case. 4. The appellant…

M.Tech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4387/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2007-08 M.Tech India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1) A 18, Pushpanjali Farm New Delhi Bijwasan New Delhi Pan: Aaacm 9794 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pranjal Srivastav, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T.Vasanthan, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 43B

…e explanation and both these disallowances in my view arise out of bonafide mistakes committed while computing this income. Thus, applying the propositions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Price Water House Coopers vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 306 (S.C.), I delete the addition. 6. In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th December,2015. (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: the 15th December., 2015 *manga Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. Appellant; 2.Respondent; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.Guard File By Order Asst.…

Smt. Deepika Bammi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4177/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2006-07 Ms.Deepika Bammi Vs. Acit, Circle 42(1) C 717, New Friends Colony New Delhi New Delhi 110 019 Pan: Afupb 7203 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T.Vasanthan, Sr.D.R

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

…id down in the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts P.Ltd. (2010) reported in 322 ITR 158 (S.C.) and judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Price Water House Coopers P.Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) reported in 348 ITR 306 (S.C.) . 5. The Ld.Sr.D.R. pointed out that the assessee had not pressed the grounds of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee on the very next day had filed a letter dated 13.5.2014, wherein the submission was made to the Ld.CIT(A) stating that she was under wrong impression that the appeal was against the quantum addition made u/s 143(3) and…

M/S. Rashi Wears Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6753/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

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

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

…d at the time of assessment and there was no concealment of any material fact by the assessee. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158(S.C.) ii) Price Water Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2010) 348 ITR 306 (S.C.) iii) CIT vs Harshwardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd. 259 ITR 112 (Raj.) 5. Ld. DR, on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the assessee had made a wrong claim on the loss on sale of fixed assets amounting to Rs.12,38,729/-, thus, there was concealment of particulars of income or furnish…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Pbs Foods Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6749/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri C.M.Gargay: 2008-09 Acit, Circle 2 Vs. Pbs Foods P.Ltd. Gurgaon A 122, Sanjay Gram Colony Gurgaon Pan: Aadcp 6496 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh.Ashis Mohanty, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : None Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-2, Faridabad Pertaining To The A.Y. 2008-09. 1.1. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issual Of Notice. There Is No Application For Adjournment Either. Under The Circumstances We Dispose Of The Case Ex Parte Qua The Assessee On Merits After Hearing The Ld.Sr.D.R. Shri Ashis Mohanty, Ld.Sr.D.R. On Behalf Of The Revenue. 2. Ld.Cit(A) At Para 3.4 To 3.5 Has Considered The Issue & Held That, The Assessee While Preparing Its Computation Of Income, Inadvertently Failed To Disallow 50% Of The Total Donation Debited By It In The Profit & Loss A/C As Per The Provisions Of S.80G Of The Act & That, When The Assessee Realised This Computational Mistake, Necessary Rectifications Were Made Vide Letter Dt. 23.8.2010, Much Before The Passing Of The Assessment Order. He Also Recorded That The Tax Auditor In His Report Had Specifically Mentioned That Only An Amount Of Rs.15 Lakhs Was Admissible As Deduction U/S 80G Of The Act. Hence He Held That A Human Error Has Crept Into The Computation Of Income. He Applied The Ratio Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sh.Ashis Mohanty, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: None

Section 271(1)Section 80G

…~ 1 ~ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2008-09 ACIT, Circle 2 vs. PBS Foods P.Ltd. Gurgaon A 122, Sanjay Gram Colony Gurgaon PAN: AADCP 6496 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh.Ashis Mohanty, Sr.D.R. Respondent by : None ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of Ld.CIT(A)-2, Faridabad pertaining to the A.Y. 2008-09. 1.1. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issual of notice. There is no application for adjournment…

Virtuous Capital Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5647/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5647/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Virtuous Capital Limited, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 1101/1102, Tax 2(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M K Vs. Maithilli Signet Premises Chs, Road, Plot No.39/4, Sector 30/A, Mumbai-400020 Vashi Navi Mumbai--400705 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 111ASection 271(1)(c)

…he various letters furnished before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, in our considered view, support the explanations of the assessee that it was a bonafide mistake. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Price waterhouse coopers (P) Ltd (348 ITR 306) has held that the bonafide mistakes would not lead to concealment of income. 13. The co-ordinate bench of Tribunal has considered the validity of levying penalty on the bonafide mistakes committed by the assessees in the case of M/s Precision Electrical Wiring System P Ltd Vs. ITO (ITA No.2349/Mum/2009 dated 19-01-2011. The above said assessee…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Meera Cotton Synthetics Mills P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7007/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year- 2006-07 Dcit-9(2), M/S Meera Cotton & R. No.218, 2Nd Floor, Synthetics Mills Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 401, 402, Express Zone, Vs. M.K.Road, W.E. Highway, A.W. Mumbai-400020 Opportunity, Reliance Office, Near Patel Uanika, Malad (East), Mumbai-400097 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabcm8385J

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

…, thus, neither there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. It is simple case of disallowance, therefore, the assessee further find support from the ratio laid down in price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) and CIT vs Icon Controls Pvt. ltd. (2007) 207 CTR (Del.) 592. In view of this fact and the decision mentioned hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 4 M/s Meeta Cotton & Synthetics Mills Pvt. Ltd. This Order was pronounced…

Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 55, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1303/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 271(1)Section 28

…s of such invalid show cause notice cannot be sustained. 4.1 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. 4.2 The learned DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC) wherein it was held that satisfac…

United Marine Services, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 12(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1179/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1179/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2009-10) M/S United Marine Services, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer- 8, Gaurishankar,Row House, Ward 12(1)(2), Vs. Sector-19,Plot No.35, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerul, M K Road, Navi Mumbai-400705 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “एफ” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“ F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, AM AND PAWAN SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1179/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2009-10) M/s United Marine Services, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer- 8, Gaurishankar,Row House, Ward 12(1)(2), Vs. Sector-19,Plot No.35, Aayakar Bhavan, Nerul, M K Road, Navi Mumbai-400705 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./PAN. :AABFU9086H अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant by Shri Bhadresh Doshi प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by Shri Vishwas S Jadhav…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nsr Farms Private Ltd., Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1737/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir: Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. Nsr Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ward-13(1), The Principal Officer, New Delhi. 606-Chiranjiv Tower, 61-Nehru Place, Delhi. (Pan: Aaacn3068J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Gautam Jain & Piyush Kumar Kamal, Adv. Department By: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain & Piyush KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR

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

…ro-product (P) Ltd. – 322 ITR 158 (S.C); ii) CIT vs. Honeywell Dac India Ltd. – 292 ITR 168 (Del.); iii) CIT vs. Brahamputra Consortium Ltd. – 348 ITR 339; iv) CIT vs. Krishna Maruti Ltd. – 330 ITR 547 (Del.) & v ) Price Water House Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – 348 ITR 306 (S.C). 4. I find that against the returned income of Rs.68,270, the assessment under sec. 143(3) was framed at Rs.14,15,759. The assessee firm is engaged in the business of sale, purchase and development of real estate properties, investment and agricultural produce. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the asse…

Khaitan Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5625/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, A.M. & Shri C.M. Garg, J.M. Ita No: 5625/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri VK Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80

…Ld.D.R. 8.1. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court at para 7 of the judgement in the case of Unison Hotels Ltd. (supra) held as follows. “7. Ld.Counsel for the appellant has relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in Price Water House Coopers Pvt.Ltd. vs. CIT(2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), but we need not examine the said aspect as the appellant is entitled to succeed in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 543 (Del) wherein it has been held that when taxable income is computed on book profits under section 115 JB and not under the normal provisions, Explanation (4…

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5901/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-II’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM ITA No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 ITA No. 5900/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 ITA No. 5901/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Wilima Wadhwa, Vs ITO, Ward-23(1) D-48, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi-110017 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AERPV3311C Assessee by : Sh. Ved Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 28.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2015 ORDER These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 17.09.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXIII…

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5900/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR

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

Smt. Wilima Wadhwa, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5899/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 5899/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR

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

Unison Hotels Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/89/2013HC Delhi10 Oct 2013

Section 115JSection 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80G

…lty and by the impugned order penalty imposed has been sustained by the tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in Price Water House Coopers Private Limited versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 348 ITR 306(SC), but we need 2013:DHC:5273-DB ITA No. 89/2013 Page 4 of 4 not examine the said aspect as the appellant is entitled to succeed in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax versus…

Commissioner of Income Tax - Xvi vs. Arvind Nagpal

ITA - 481 / 2013HC Delhi07 Oct 2013

Section 94(7)

…pital gains. The Assessing Officer had observed that tax at normal rate of 30% was applicable. The assessee accepted the said position and has paid tax and interest. . In Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), the Supreme Court deleted the penalty and has accepted that human errors do happen in spite of calibre, expertise and due care. Mistakes, when explained and shown to be bona fide, do not justify levy of penalty. It has been observed as under:- . ??The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of th…

Shervani Hospitalities Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/804/2011HC Delhi28 May 2013

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

…mputra Consortium Ltd. 2012 348 ITR 339 and Pramod Mittal vs. CIT ITA No. 67/2012 decided on 11th October, 2012 by the Delhi High Court. 24. Recently again, the Supreme Court in the case Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd v. CIT (Supreme Court) (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) has observed as under: “…The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. All that happened in the present case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error failed to add the provision for…