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 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

St. Peter School, Durgapur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 820/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 St. Peters School Ito, Ward-2(1), Exemption, Na, Mira Bai Road B Zone, Durgapur. Vs Durgapur, Burdwan-713204 (Pan: Aaatb9527D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Subho Chakraborty, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Additional Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Subho Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Additional CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

…fall under the same principle, as the depreciation claim was made due to error without any intent to defraud the revenue. The Counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Corporation P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) wherein it was held that no penalty could be imposed 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has misreported its income by claiming depreciation that was clearly disallowable u/s. 11(6) of the Act. The Ld. DR contended that the provisions of section 11(6) was unambiguous and the assessee being a charitable institution w…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhpaur vs. Rbl Bank Ltd, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…a case where the assessee tried to mislead the Revenue by intentionallyclaiming higher amount of deduction. Rather it is a case of inadvertent mistake in the computation of income. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) has held that no penalty u/s.271(l)(c) can be imposed in respect of inadvertent and bona fide mistake committed by the assessee. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Somany Evergreen Knits (2013) 352 ITR 592 also deleted the penalty which occurred due to bona fide and inadvertent mistake of the Chartered Accountant while filing t…

M/S Himachal Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-6(3), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 8/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 8/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27lSection 80Section 80ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 8/CHD/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Himachal Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The ITO, बनाम Ward 6(3), ‘Formerly M/s Candex Chemicals Aaykar Bhawan, Fibres Co. Ltd’, Rishi Nagar, 851, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: AADCC2296C अपीलाथ"/ APPELLANT ""यथ"/ REPSONDENT ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA & Shri Aditya…

Rukmani Wires Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-21(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 5481/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarrukmani Wires Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, G-1087, Dsiidc Industrial Circle-1(2), Complex Area, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaccr7552F

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 115QSection 143(3)Section 18Section 271(1)Section 46ASection 48

…levied on an incorrect claim. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Private Limited reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC) and Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 306 (SC). In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the 12. judicial precedents relied upon herein above, we direct the ld AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, ground Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7 raised by the assessee are hereby allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 13.…

Shriram Fortune Solutions Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1567/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1567/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-2020) Shriram Fortune Solutions Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 123, Angappa Naciken Street, Income Tax, Chennai 600 001. Corporate Circle 3(1) Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7708N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…ing other clinching evidence filed are auditor’s certificate certifying inadvertent error crept in the report, PF chart, ESI chart, challans showing payment made. Even contributions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water Coopers (P) Ltd. vs CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) wherein it has been held that no penalty is leviable in case of an inadvertent error committed in the computation of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the totality of the fact of that case held that even the assessee could make "silly" mistakes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the contents of the tax audit report suggest…

Satish Garg, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Income Tax Office, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 254/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 254/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Satish Garg, Vs The Ito, 23, Madhu Colony, Ward-4, Yamunanagar Income Tax Office, Yamunanagar "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aawpk7566K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 271

…r concealment of income. The aforesaid discrepancy occurred only due to the clerical error. The ld. Counsel, in this respect, has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT, Koltaka-1’ [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on identical facts, has held that if the discrepancy had occurred through a bonafide and inadvertent error this can only be described as human error which we all are prone to make. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, held that the imposition of penalty in such a case was not justified. 4. In the case in han…

Chhaya Vikas Shah Legal Heir & Wife of Late Vikas Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, all three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 584/AHD/2023[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarsl. आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

…While deciding on the merits relating to penalty on disallowances, the Ld.CIT(A) discussed the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on by the assessee, namely the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Price Waterhouse Coopers P Ltd vs CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC) as well as CIT vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt Ltd [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), where it was held that mere disallowance of a claim or plausible explanation furnished by the assessee apart from the fact that the issues in dispute being highly debatable, no penalty was warranted. 3.2. The CIT(A) also concluded that – - the additions have been mad…

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 546/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

…esponse to which the assessee offered correct income and also paid the tax, additional tax interest etc. The assessment was completed later on without making any addition as compared to ROI filed u/s 148. 7.6.2 Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) held that:…

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 545/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

…esponse to which the assessee offered correct income and also paid the tax, additional tax interest etc. The assessment was completed later on without making any addition as compared to ROI filed u/s 148. 7.6.2 Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) held that: "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 case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while su…

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 544/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

…esponse to which the assessee offered correct income and also paid the tax, additional tax interest etc. The assessment was completed later on without making any addition as compared to ROI filed u/s 148. 7.6.2 Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) held that: "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 case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while su…

Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 167/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

…ld ,cannot be charged with having concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income so as to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Law in this regard is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd vs C.I.T, [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC) wherein in identical set of facts where the assessee was noted to have disclosed all particulars of expense and the assesses explanation for not suo moto disallowing the same as being done by mistake, was found bonafide by the court, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Apex court. Even otherwise, during the course of h…

Amarshiv Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

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

…aimed 15% instead of 50% which is a bonafide mistake of a typographical error and, therefore, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd, 322 ITR 158 (SC) & Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC), the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act will not be attracted. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Oder, Penalty Order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has in fact not concealed any income but in fact ther…

Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited, Chennai vs. Commissioner Appeals Nafac, Nafac

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

ITA 1494/CHNY/2023[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

…ence, the imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on assessee’s held not justified. The Hon’ble Madras High Court applied the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). Further, as contended by the ld.counsel for the assessee and relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Ltd., supra, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has propounded “the meaning of the term ‘particulars’ used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no informatio…

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Ateeq Ahmed, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5096/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…in prescribed time by the demand notice. The AR submitted before CIT(A) that by the conduct of the appellant, the bona-fide have been proved and ratios of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 as well as Price Waterhouse Coopers Vs. CIT. 348 ITR 306 (SC) are applicable. 9.1 Learned CIT(A) gave due consideration to the submissions and accepted the argument of the AR that it was inadvertent mistake and the appellant has proved bona-fide by conduct (as soon as it came to the notice, it was accepted and taxes were paid the within the time prescribed by the demand notice), cannot be brushed asid…

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Ateeq Ahmed, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5095/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

…in prescribed time by the demand notice. The AR submitted before CIT(A) that by the conduct of the appellant, the bona-fide have been proved and ratios of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 as well as Price Waterhouse Coopers Vs. CIT. 348 ITR 306 (SC) are applicable. 9.1 Learned CIT(A) gave due consideration to the submissions and accepted the argument of the AR that it was inadvertent mistake and the appellant has proved bona-fide by conduct (as soon as it came to the notice, it was accepted and taxes were paid the within the time prescribed by the demand notice), cannot be brushed asid…

Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 789/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

…has held that merely on account of disallowance of claim by itself does not amount for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-I reported in 348 ITR 306 dated 25.09.2012 has been held as under: “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. Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT Notwithstanding this, it is possible that even the a…

Jaipur Telecom Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 788/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

…has held that merely on account of disallowance of claim by itself does not amount for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-I reported in 348 ITR 306 dated 25.09.2012 has been held as under: “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. Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT Notwithstanding this, it is possible that even the a…

Jet Lite (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6 (Now CC-1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 156Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…ts set by section 40A(3) were identified by tax audit report. Therefore, a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment cannot be Jet Lite (India) Ltd made out. Also, the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Vs. CIT. 348 ITR 306 (SC) helps the cause of the appellant. 9.39 The addition of Rs. 1,24,533/-, was due to option of the appellant (not pressing the ground nos. 5 and 6 during the appeal proceedings against the re- assessment as per direction of CIT(A)) that this addition remained as part of assessed income. Therefore, no case of levy of penalty can be made out in r…

Meyer Organics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3307/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mihir C. Naniwadekar a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…TA no.3307/Mum./2023 supports the claim of the assessee that the mistakes were sheer inadvertent human error. We find that the plea of the assessee is supported by the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. v/s CIT, [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC). Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee made bona fide mistakes in the computation of its total income while filing its original return of income, which were corrected by the assessee by filing the revised computation during the assessment proceedings. 9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, we are of the consider…

Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle (1), Thane

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

ITA 2845/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle (1) 5Th Floor, High Street Cum Highland Thane Corporate Centre, Kapurbawadi, Vs. Thane-400 607

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Choughule
Section 143(3)Section 197Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

…e assessee will invite penalty under section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 13. The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 25 Taxmann.com 400 (SC). From the above stated decisions, it is pertinent to point out that even in the present case, the assessee was not queried about the provisions of lease equalization but had voluntarily by written submission stated to the ld. A.O. that the disallowance of Rs.10,99,081/- was the difference between the actual amount and the disallowan…