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

Cococart Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3139/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 154Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 3139/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Cococart Ventures Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited Ward 14(1)(1), 1501, 15th Floor, Mumbai Brindhavan Terraces, Aayakar Bhavan, Deonar Farm Road, Near M.K. Road, Mumbai- Barc Hospital Gate, 400020 Deonar, T.F. Donar S. O, Mumbai, 400088 PAN:AAICC9694H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra & Rupa Nanda Respondent by Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing 18.06.2025 Date of Prono…

Kaycee Finstock Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6688/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekaycee Finstock Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 7Th 705, Floor, Maker Tax -2(1)(1), Mumbai Chamber V, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan : Aacck6191P Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi– Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, on being confronted, accepted the additions.” 7. The Ld. AR, in the course of his submissions, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the order of the ITAT deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the imposition of penalty on the assessee was not justified since the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inac…

ACIT, Chandigarh vs. The Punjabi University, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 359/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270A

…r following the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajiv Batra 360 ITR 121 as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance PetroProducts Ltd. 322 ITR 158 and Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 A.Y.2018-19 5 (S.C.). The claim made in the return was a bonafide claim because at that point of time, assessee was not enjoying registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. The moment it got registration under Section 12AA, it withdrew its claim for depreciation and offered that amount for taxation. Therefore, it cannot be imputed…

The Chief Manager (Administration) State Bank of India, Jhansi vs. Additional CIT(TDS), Kanpur

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 289/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Section 10(5)Section 201(1)Section 271C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON'BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपीलसं./ ITA No. 287/Agr/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपीलसं./ ITA No. 289/Agr/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Chief Manager (Administration) State Bank of India Regional Business Office (RBO), 372/44, Gwalior Road Civil Lines, Jhansi Addl. CIT (TDS) Kanpur बनाम/ Vs. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR/TAN No.AGRS-14799-B (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant by : प्रत्यर्थीकी ओरसे/Respondent by: : : (प्रत्यर्…

The Chief Manager (Administration) State Bank of India, Jhansi vs. Additional CIT (TDS), Kanpur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 288/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.288/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Chief Manager (Admin) Addl. Cit (Tds) बनाम/ State Bank Of India (Rbo) Kanpur 327/44, Gwalior Road, Civil Lines Vs. Jhansi – 284 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan No. Agrs-14799-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(5)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.288/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Chief Manager (Admin) Addl. CIT (TDS) बनाम/ State Bank of India (RBO) Kanpur 327/44, Gwalior Road, Civil Lines Vs. Jhansi – 284 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./TAN No. AGRS-14799-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 11-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement…

The Chief Manager (Administration)State Bank of India, )N, Jhansi vs. Additional CIT (TDS), Kanpur

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 287/AGR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 287/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 289/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Chief Manager (Administration) Addl. Cit (Tds) State Bank Of India Kanpur बनाम/ Regional Business Office (Rbo), Vs. 372/44, Gwalior Road Civil Lines, Jhansi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir/Tan No.Agrs-14799-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deepak Maheshwari, Adv.-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Identical I.E., Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty U/S 271C. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-06-2024 Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 271C.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Maheshwari, Adv.-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(5)Section 201(1)Section 271C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 287/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 289/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Chief Manager (Administration) Addl. CIT (TDS) State Bank of India Kanpur बनाम/ Regional Business Office (RBO), Vs. 372/44, Gwalior Road Civil Lines, Jhansi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR/TAN No.AGRS-14799-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Deepak Maheshwari, Adv.-Ld. A…

Amman Spintex, Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2079/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2079 & 2080/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Amman Spintex, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.155, Mill Road, Vs. Income Tax, Gobichettipalayam, Circle-1, Erode – 638 476. Erode. [Pan: Aazfa 7154J]

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 273BSection 80I

…cepted u/s. 143(1) of the Act, reinforcing the ITA Nos.2079 & 2080/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: assessee’s reasonable belief that the deduction was allowable. The Ld AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC), wherein it was held that a bonafide mistake based on professional advice does not amount to concealment or misreporting warranting a penalty. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of lower authorities, and submitted that Section 80IA(4) of the Act clearly limits the deduction to ten consecuti…

DCIT Circle-2, Nagpur vs. M/S Trister Retail Concepts Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, department’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 319/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…alty proceedings, and no deliberate attempt to conceal income or file inaccurate particulars was found. Reliance is placed on the following judicial precedents, which support the deletion of penalty in such cases: i) Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 348 ITR 306) (SC – The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that penalty should not be levied for a bona fide and inadvertent human error. ii) CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) – The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. The ass…

Jatin Garg, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

…he primary question in consideration and has a direct bearing on the case of the appellant. The Bench is requested to admit the same in the interest of substantial justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Private Limited Vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 has held that to ensure complete justice between the parties and to uphold the principal of natural justice particularly the appellant's right of fair hearing, the relevant additional evidence should be admitted. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Anaikar Trade and Estates (P) Ltd (No.2) vs. C…

Sacs Power Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Trichy

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

ITA 2159/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2159/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sacs Power Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 3/314, Chinthamani Road, Vs. Income Tax, Rajaman Nagar Bus Stop, Circle-2(1), Madurai – 625 009. Trichy. [Pan: Aahcs 4952P]

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

…income tax purposes. The Ld AR argued that this was merely a mistake which was subsequently corrected as soon as it was brought in its notice. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC), wherein it was held that penalty cannot be levied in cases of bonafide mistakes. The Ld. AR further submitted that upon noticing the incorrect claim during the course of assessment, assessee has revised the return of income for subsequent years. The Ld. AR has submitted that there was no malafide intention behind the excess depreciation,…

The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dharamshala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Palampur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 805/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

…claimed expenditure which claim was not accepted, the same would not attract the provision of Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pricewaterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 306 wherein it was held that where the assessee has claimed deduction of provision towards payment of gratuity in its return even though the tax audit report which was filed alongwith the return unequivocally stated that the provision for payment of gratuity was not allowable as deduction under section 40A(7), it was a bona fide and inadvertent error…

The Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Dharamshala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Palampur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 804/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

…claimed expenditure which claim was not accepted, the same would not attract the provision of Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pricewaterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 306 wherein it was held that where the assessee has claimed deduction of provision towards payment of gratuity in its return even though the tax audit report which was filed alongwith the return unequivocally stated that the provision for payment of gratuity was not allowable as deduction under section 40A(7), it was a bona fide and inadvertent erro…

Silver Oak Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT-6, Pune

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

ITA 2589/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Miss Aarti ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…held to be 'misreporting' and further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted, penalty order was quashed. 14. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), she submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that where in tax audit report filed by the assessee, it was indicated that provision towards payment of gratuity was not allowable but assessee failed to add said provision to total income, no penalty could be imposed for such mistake. She accordingly submitted that…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Rashtrotthana Parishat, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1666/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 250Section 270ASection 274

…ITA No.1666/Bang/2024 Dcit(E), Circle-1, Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017=18 DCIT (E) RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT Circle-1 Keshava Shilpa, K G Nagar Bengaluru Vs. Basavanagudi Bengaluru South 560004 PAN NO : AAATR1735R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.R. Respondent by : Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA Date of Hearing : 12.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2024 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the…

Indian Chronicle Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…mean that penalty proceeding has to be automatically initiated. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 332 ITR 158(SC) and in the case of Price Water House Coopers P. Ltd. 348 ITR 306 (SC). 9. Per contra, Shri Rignesh Das, Ld. SR DR submitted that the assesse had not responded to the query raised by the AO in the course of assessment proceeding in respect of working of MAT income, which was clear manifest of the fact that the assessee had deliberatelyneither provided working of MAT income nor responded to the proposed adjustm…

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm..of Incometax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1344/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(7)

…penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) is not in accordance with law and therefore, has to be deleted. 5.2. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC), he drew the attention of the Bench to para-19 of the order which reads as under : “19. 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. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present ca…

Mumbai Educational Trust, Bandra Reclamation vs. DCIT (Exem) - 2, Mumbai, Pedder Road

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2530/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Rs. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…y the fact that the assessee has voluntary conceded that the depreciation is erroneously claimed and accordingly withdrew the ground raised against the said claim before the CIT(A). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC) has held that there would be no s. 271(1)(c) penalty for a “bona fide/ inadvertent/ human error”. The below observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) is relevant in this context – "Penalty is not to be imposed if there is no conscious breach of law. An order imposi…

ACIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2898/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle 3(4), 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Maker Chamber Iv Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal

Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Reliance Industries Ltd., Dy. CIT Circle 3(4), 3rd floor, Maker Chamber IV 222 Room No. 559, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AAACR 5055 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 ACIT-3(4), Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 481(2), 4th floor, 3rd floor, Maker Chamber IV Aayakar Bhavan, N.M. Road, Vs. Nariman Point, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. PAN NO.…

Dilip Kapur, Pondicherry vs. ACIT, NFAC, Circle 1, Pondicherry

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 984/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 984/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dilip Kapur The Assistant Commissioner Of 7, Saint Martin Street, Income Tax, Pondicherry (Ut), Circle -1, Pondicherry – 605 001. Pondicherry – 605 003. [Pan: Adspd-4530-H ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी एस. आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.: 984/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dilip Kapur The Assistant Commissioner of 7, Saint Martin Street, Income Tax, Pondicherry (UT), Circle -1, Pondicherry – 605 001. Pondicherry – 605 003. [PAN: ADSPD-4530-H ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant by : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओ…

Smt. Poonam Pujari, Rourkela vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 218/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathanbefore Member & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…iculars. The default committed by the assessee at the most can be termed as technical or venial breach of law for which rigors penalty provisions cannot be invoked. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 306 (SC) held that penalty provisions u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied for concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in case of bonafide/inadvertent/human error. The assessee has furnished all the relevant details with respect to the claim by it towards transportation expenditures in the return of income filed and also during t…