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 366,314 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

Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3944/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Radhika Puri AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.3944/DEL/2019 Assessment Year 2009-10 YUM! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. v. ITO, Ward-27(4), Ltd., New Delhi. 12th Floor, Tower-D, Global Business Park, M.G. Road, Gurgaon. TAN/PAN: AAACY1884D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Radhika Puri Adv. Respondent by: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 25 08 2022 Date of pronouncement: 31 08 2022 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee ag…

Mahesh Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 7 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…on the advice of Tax Consultant, therefore assessee should not be penalized. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgement of 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, wherein it 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. Notwithstanding this, it is possible that even the assessee could make…

Central News Agency Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-5(2), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1684/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing & All The Above Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Each Other.”

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27l

…eciation Schedule as per IT Act 6. Copy of Revised computation filed before learned AO (B.3) The following compilation of judgments were also filed from the assessee’s side: -Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 400/211 Taxman 40/348 ITR 306 (SC) -DCIT, Mumbai Vs Shah Rukh Khan [2018] 93 taxmann.com 320 (Mumbai-Trib.) CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 322/322 ITR 158 (SC) -Tristar Intech (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi-Trib.) Page 4 of 14 Central News Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT -Vimalachal Print & Pack (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2022] 137 taxmann…

ACIT Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hello Retail India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 3049/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT-DR

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

…e assessee has not filed any inaccurate particulars of income and drawing support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR 158 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd 348 ITR 306, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 14. Before us, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 295 ITR 244, Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in 328 ITR 44 and 105 ITR 708. 15. We have carefully considered the order…

Mr. Real Team System Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1389/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1389/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito 15(3)(1) M/S Real Team Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Systems Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 1101, Bldg. No. 6, Road, Churchgate, Seawood Estates, Nri Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 706 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr0073Q (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 17.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 17.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.12.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Mumbai In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1389/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) ITO 15(3)(1) M/s Real Team Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Systems Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 1101, Bldg. No. 6, Road, Churchgate, Seawood Estates, NRI Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 706 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AADCR0073Q (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 17.08.2022 Date of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 17.08.20…

Deco Mica Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The JCIT(OSD), Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1243/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Deco Mica Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 306, 3Rd Floor, Iscon Mall, Star Bazar Vs Income-Tax (Osd), Building, Jodhpur Cross Road, Circle 1(1)(2), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacd 8652 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR

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

…ure of Capital nature and there was no willful suppression or misrepresentation of facts by the appellant company. The appellant Company relies on the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in case of Price Water house Coopers Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (348 ITR 306) where Hon'ble Apex Court has held noted that " .... there was no willful suppression of facts by the assessee, but that a genuine mistake or omission had been committed. The assessee filed a revised return on the same day... .. According to the Supreme Court, the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to o…

Bhagirath Mal, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 9/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…ood faith on the advice of previous tax consultant, and therefore appellant may not be penalized for such mistake. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, Calcutta-1 reported in 348 ITR 306. Relevant operating para of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced in the written submission, wherein the Court has held that though the assessee is reputed firm and has great experience available with it but not withstanding this, it is possible that even assessee could make silly mistakes. It appears that through a bonafide and inadvertent error…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ratnagiri Circle, Ratnagiri vs. The Ratnagiri District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Ratnagiri

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1674/PUN/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

…ed order deleted the penalty by holding that mere disallowance of claim does not entail levy of penalty placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproduct (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) and Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 306 (SC). Being aggrieved by the decision of CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us challenging the correctness of order of CIT(A). 7. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice. The Sr. DR submits that the respondent- assessee bank made wrong claim deliberately knowing that it was not entit…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ratnagiri Circle, Ratnagiri vs. The Ratnagiri District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Ratnagiri

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1633/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ratnagiri Circle, Ratnagiri vs. The Ratnagiri District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Ratnagiri

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1631/PUN/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ratnagiri Circle, Ratnagiri vs. The Ratnagiri District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Ratnagiri

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1634/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ratnagiri Circle, Ratnagiri vs. The Ratnagiri District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Ratnagiri

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1632/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

Chandarakant M. Dalwadi(L/H Rajan C. Dalwadi), Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2385/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…anner and there was no intention of concealment of income or filing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Assessment Year: 2010-11 Page 3 of 3 of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC), the genuine mistake or the reasonable circumstances will not treat the case of the particular assessee as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. Therefore, we are allowing the appeal of the assessee and hereby delete the penalty. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the…

DCIT Circle-7, Pune vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 55/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

…f the Act. Some of such decisions, have already been cited by the appellant in his written submissions made before the AO during penalty proceedings and further during appellate proceedings, are as below: - (i) Price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT(2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) In this case it was held as below:- "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 bona-fide and inadvertent error, th…

Raj Kumari Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Dy CIT, CC-II, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 125/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Deputy cuke Smt. Raj Kumari Maheshwari Commissioner of 18, Gopal Li Ka Rasta, Vs. Income-Tax, Jaipur. Central Circle-2, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHXPM 3143 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri R. K. Bhatra (…

M/S. Rane Industries Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -5, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 555/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.555/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Rane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Gat No.52, Dehu Alandi Road, Circle-5, Pune Talwade, Pune – 412114 Pan: Aadcr9011N Appellant Respondent

Section 271(1)(c)

…case where the assessee tried to mislead the Revenue by intentionally claiming 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(1)(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…

Clean Science & Technology Pvt.Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Appeal) -2, Pune

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

ITA 961/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 5

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.961/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Clean Science & Technology Vs. CIT (Appeals)-2, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., Shubham, New Nagar Road Vidyanagar, Tal- Sangamner, Ahmednagar-422605. PAN : AAICS9799L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue by Shri S. P. Walimbe : Date of hearing : 26.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 27.05.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee dir…

Raipur Securities and Investment Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Raipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue

ITA 164/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 164/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Raipur Securities & Investment Ltd. Mig 21, Indravati Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaccr4419F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR

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

…ments. Since the gain was left to be accounted through proper accounting entry, it was not reflected in the statement of profit & loss and consequently, it escaped disclosure in the computation. In the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), a disallowance on account of gratuity was reported in the tax audit report which was not disallowed in the return/computation. It was held that the tax audit report was filed with the return and that it unequivocally stated that provision for payment was not allowable which indicates that the assessee made a computation error. Contents of t…

Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6565/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Agarwal Packers & Movers Ltd., Vs Dcit, Wedding Mall, 3Rd Floor, Local Central Circle-1(2), Shopping Centre, Pitampura, New Delhi. New Delhi-110034. Pan-Aafca3559A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent By Mrs. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.04.2022 Order

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(iii)

…could not mean that the assessee was guilty of either furnishing of inaccurate particulars as was attempting to conceal its income. The reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs CIT [SC] 348 ITR 306. Further, it was submitted that the claim was made under the bonafide belief that such deduction was available. It was contended 3 | P a g e that the assessee disclosed and furnished the correct particulars of his income. However, the AO did not accept this contention of the assessee and he proceeded to levy the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) o…

M/S. Slv Housing Development Corporation, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 19/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arvind V Chavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shehnawaz Ul Rahaman Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…ed an error in failing to appreciate that the mistake committed by the chartered accountant would be sufficient ground for not levy of penalty in view of the law declared by the Honorable Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers private limited vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) and CIT vs Reliance Petro Products Private Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) 3. The assessee is a firm engaged in real estate business. The assessee has filed the return of income for assessment year 2014-15 on 30/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,94,73,220. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) dated 07/09/2015 was i…