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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 3/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…ssee company with penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act w.r.t the inflated/false claim of expenses raised by it in the revised return of income. 16. Apropos the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) as had been pressed into service by the Ld. AR, the same being distinguishable on facts, would not carry the case of the assessee company any further. We say so for the reason CO Nos. 19 & 20/RPR/2023 that the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that where the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bonafide error and not intended to or attem…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 2/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…ssee company with penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act w.r.t the inflated/false claim of expenses raised by it in the revised return of income. 16. Apropos the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) as had been pressed into service by the Ld. AR, the same being distinguishable on facts, would not carry the case of the assessee company any further. We say so for the reason CO Nos. 19 & 20/RPR/2023 that the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that where the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bonafide error and not intended to or attem…

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

ITA 2040/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Respondent/
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM I.T.A. No. 2039/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2006-07) and I.T.A. No. 2040/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2008-09) and I.T.A. No. 2038/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11) ACIT Circle-1(2)(1), MSEB Holding Company Ltd. 3rd & 4th Floor, Hsbc Building, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400049. PAN No. AAECM2934Q Appellant) : Respondent) Ms Sanyogita Nagpal, Ld. CIT-DR Appellant/ Department by : Respondent/Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. CA Date of Hearing : 21.09.2023 Date of Pr…

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mseb Holding Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue/Department are dismissed

ITA 2039/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Respondent/
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, AM & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM I.T.A. No. 2039/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2006-07) and I.T.A. No. 2040/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2008-09) and I.T.A. No. 2038/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11) ACIT Circle-1(2)(1), MSEB Holding Company Ltd. 3rd & 4th Floor, Hsbc Building, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400049. PAN No. AAECM2934Q Appellant) : Respondent) Ms Sanyogita Nagpal, Ld. CIT-DR Appellant/ Department by : Respondent/Assessee by : Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. CA Date of Hearing : 21.09.2023 Date of Pr…

Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 5(1)(1), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1070/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Jaypee Cement Vs. Acit, Corporation Ltd, Circle-5(1)(1), Sector-128, Gautam Noida Budh Nagar, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacz2168D

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 32A

…in reporting of amount of deduction under section 32AC of the Act by the Tax Auditor in the Tax Audit Report. It is trite law that no penalties should be levied for inadvertent bonafide mistakes. Inter alia please refer Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd. v CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC). As such, the penalty as levied and confirmed, deserves to be deleted in toto. 3. That on realizing the said inadvertent mistake by the Tax Auditor, the Appellant voluntarily rectified such mistake and included the said excess allowance under section 32AC of the Act during assessment proceedings before any query by Ld. AO. No penalty should…

D C Polyester Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyald. C. Polyester Limited S. V. Industrial Estate, Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400 063 Pan: Aaacd3816C ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Cc – 6(4), R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…Hence, penalty on this disallowance is also not sustainable. 6. In addition to the above findings, we further rely on the judgment of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR 158 (SC) and Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 5 D. C. Polyester Limited vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC). Wherein it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that mere disallowances made by the AO do not call for levy of penalty under this provision because there is no conclusive evidence of concealment. Moreover as discussed above, the case of the assessee does not fall in the category where allegation of ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’…

Akram Hossain Mullick, Howrah vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 320/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri S. P. Datta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.320 /Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Akram Hossain Mullick Deputy/Assistant Commr. NA, Dharsa Mullick Para, of Income Tax, Circle-47, Vs. Balitikuri, Howrah-711113 Kolkata. (PAN: AEUPM 6002 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri S. P. Datta, Advocate Respondent by : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 11.07.2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the asses…

Gtpl Rajwadi Network Pvt. Ltd., Bamroli vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.95/SRT/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) GTPL Rajwadi Network Pvt. Dy. Commissioner of Income- Ltd. Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat- Vs. Plot No.72 Shop No.1-2-3, 395001 Bamroli Road, Bamroli-394210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCG 1544 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, CA राज" की ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr- DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 08/05/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/D…

Shri Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 205/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat Income Tax Officer, Ward- 55,V.T. Nagar, Near Sarthana 3(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Jakatnaka, Varachha, Majura Gate, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 Pan No: Adkpk 2173 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत "ायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.205/SRT/2023 (AY 2016-17) (Hearing in Physical Court) Vithalbhai Kadvabhai Korat Income Tax Officer, Ward- 55,V.T. Nagar, Near Sarthana 3(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs Jakatnaka, Varachha, Majura Gate, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 PAN No: ADKPK 2173 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Mehul Shah, C.A राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR अपील पंजीकरण/Date of filing appeal 24.03.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of…

D.Senthil Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1209/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate ) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1 राव, "ाियक सद2 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद2 के सम9। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1209/Chny/2017 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri D. Senthil Kumar The ACIT बनाम/ No.25, Rathinasabapathy Street, Circle-II Co-operative A Colony, K.K.Pudur Coimbatore. Vs. Coimbatore-641 038. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AJUPS-1904-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri S. Sridha…

Right Tight Fastners Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 684/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…1 ITA 684/Mum/2023 M/s Right Tight Fastners Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.684/Mum/2023 (Assessment year 2013-14) Right Tight Fastners Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Office No.112, Bhaveshwar Arcade Tax-11(1)(1), Mumbai 204, Aayakar Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Annexe, Near Shreyas Cinema Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 086 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Shashank Mehta Department represented by Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.AR Date of hearing 16…

R.M Chemicals P Ltd, Indore vs. The DCIT/Ait 4 (1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 353/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.R.M. Chemicals Acit , 4(1), Pvt.Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ 74,Jumerati, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7154D Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ca & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2023

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,इंदौर"यायपीठ,इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIB.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s.R.M. Chemicals ACIT , 4(1), Pvt.Ltd., Bhopal बनाम/ 74,Jumerati, Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: AAACR7154D Assessee by Shri Hitesh Chimnani, CA and Shri Yash Kukreja, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 03.07.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 10.08.2022passed by learned Commissi…

Mr. Ranjith Thazhe Kunhambath, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Non Corporate Range 2, Kochi

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee and the stay petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1000/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Paulson, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…has been brought to the notice of the assessee during assessment proceedings, the assessee has conceded the mistake and the addition. 7. In this regard, we notice that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PriceWaterHouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) while considering the issue of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act held that even if the assessee was a reputed firm and had great expertise available with it, it was possible that it could make a ‘silly’ mistake. The Page 6 of 7 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case further held that it was through a bonafide and inadverten…

The DCIT-1(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. M/S Fern Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 139Section 143Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…never the intention of the appellant to conceal these incomes. In this connection, reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 25th September, 2012, (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC): (2012) 253 CTR (SC) 1: (2012) 211 TAXMAN 40 (SC) wherein Supreme Court held that imposition of penalty would be unwarranted in a case where the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bonafide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. The Hon'ble Court held as below:- "Penal…

Shri Suresh Mal Lodha, 537-38, Mahima Trinity, New Sanganer Road, Swej Farm, Jaipur vs. ACIT Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 968/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahenda Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…aw arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved to be upheld - Whether Special leave petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee].” 6.2.4 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…

Mohite and Mohite (Engineers and Contractors), Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 288/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.286 to 288/PUN/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2015-16 Mohite and Mohite Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, (Engineers and Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. PAN : AACFM4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date of hearing : 21.12.2022 Date of pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeal…

Mohite and Mohite (Engineers and Contractors), Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 287/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.286 to 288/PUN/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2015-16 Mohite and Mohite Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, (Engineers and Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. PAN : AACFM4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date of hearing : 21.12.2022 Date of pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeal…

Mohite and Mohite (Engineers and Contractors), Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 286/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.286 to 288/PUN/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2015-16 Mohite and Mohite Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, (Engineers and Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. PAN : AACFM4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date of hearing : 21.12.2022 Date of pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeal…

Atepl Rahee Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1570/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 1Section 2Section 271Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

…PCIT vs. New Era Sova Mine, Tax Appeal No. 70/2018 5. CIT vs Shri Samson Perinchery, ITA No.1154/2016 dated 05.01.2017 Inadvertent Mistake This has also been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Copper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) that no penalty on account of a human error can be levied. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read 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…

DCIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagson International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4761/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT (DR)
Section 115VSection 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2013-14 DCIT, Circle-13(1) Vs. Jagson International Ltd. New Delhi. 3rd Floor, Vandana Building, 11, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 PAN AAACJ2147A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Advocate Department by : Shri M. Baranwal, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 02.12.2022 Date of 06.12.2022 pronouncement O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM: The appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated…