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 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

Stera Engineering India Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1548/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ncome of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars". 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not noting that the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) cited before him also supports the present appellant's case. 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in observing that the above decisions relied on by the appellant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case without setting out his reasoning for the said finding & conclusion. 8. The appellant respectfu…

Sterling Investment Corporation P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT-Appeals-8, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1667/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharshiआअसं. 1667/मुं/2020(िन.व.2015-16) Sterling Investment Corporation : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pvt Ltd, 41/44, S P Centre, Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai Pan: Aaaccs5467L बनाम/ Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Appeals-(8) : ""थ"/ Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan
Section 135Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

…the subsequent assessment years. The Ld.AR contended that where the mistake is bonafide, no penalty should be levied. In support of his contention, the Ld.AR interalia placed reliance on the following decisions:- 1. Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd vs CIT – 348 ITR 306 (SC) 2. CIT vs Somany Evergree Knits Ltd – 252 ITR 92 (Bom) 3. CIT vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd, 322 ITR 158 (SC) 4. On the other hand, Shri Milind Chavan representing the department, vehemently defended the impugned order. The Ld.DR submitted that it is not a case of limited scrutiny. The expenditure in respect of CSR was claimed by the ass…

Gvn Hospitals, Tiruchirapalli vs. ACIT-1(1), Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2096/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR V Sreenivasan
Section 145Section 28Section 44A

…acts and held that for the mistake of auditor, the assessee cannot be penalized, when the assessee 7 has explained differences. He had also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt.Ltd Vs. CIT (2002) 348 ITR 306 (SC) and submitted that for bonafide mistake of a human, which we all prone to errors, no one can be penalized. 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that claim of the assessee that tax auditor has considered unaudited financials for relevant assessment year, while uploading tax audit report in F…

The ACIT Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Chandrakant G Patel, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 799/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

…in support its contention: (i) CIT-I, Mumbai Vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (2013) 33 taxmann.com 227 (Bombay High Court) (ii) CIT, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroleum (P) Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxmn 322 (Supreme Court) (iii) CIT Vs. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 306 (iv) T. Ashok Pai Vs. CIT (2007) 161 Taxmann 340 (SC) (v) CIT Vs. Societex 259 CTR 325 (Delhi) (vi) ITAT Delhi Bench in ACIT Vs. Ashok Raj Nath (2013) 33 taxmann.com 588 With these submissions, the Ld. A/R prayed that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty and the action of Ld. CIT(A) must be upheld. 13 ITA No. 799/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2014-15…

Chetu India Private Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3331/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Singhal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Varma, Sr.D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…in the course of the assessment proceedings by filing a revised computation of income, could have been validly imposed. It was further submitted by the ld. AR that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC), where an assessee on account a bonafide mistake had raised a claim, therein, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on such standalone reason could validly be imposed on it. Also, in order to support his aforesaid contentions the ld. AR had relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT-8 vs. Samtel India Ltd. (2018) 96 ta…

M/S. Pal Synthetics Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the penalty imposed against the assessee is deleted on account of vague and improper notice as well as on merit

ITA 5229/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S Pal Synthetics Ltd. 41, Pal House, Marol Co-Operative Industrial Estate Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400068 Pan: Aabcp9916A ............ Appellant Vs. Dcit-10(3)(2), Room No. 509, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 ............ Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Abhay Agarwal, Ar Respondent By : Sh. R.A. Dhyani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2021 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Challenging The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 17.05.2019 On The Ground Mentioned In The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Abhay Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. R.a. Dhyani, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…re, no malafide intention to conceal the income or particulars of income can be attributed to the assessee. For the above said purpose, we may further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Price Water Cooper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (348 ITR 306) for the said purposes. ITA No. 5229 Mum 2019-M/s Pal Synthetics Ltd. 16. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on merit also we are of the opinion that the penalty imposed on the assessee is also liable to be deleted. In the result, the penalty imposed against the assessee is deleted on account of vague and impro…

Keystone Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 5, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2558/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 14ASection 244ASection 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…. The assessee has not shown the same which was only due to bonafide inadvertent human error while preparing data of ITR/ Tax Audit. The Ld AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, Kolkata 348 ITR 306 (SC). The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (2011) 11 SCC 762: 322 ITR 158 3 wherein it is held that submitting incorrect claim in law does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of assessee or concealment. 6. The Ld DR relied upon the asses…

DCIT Circle 1, Thane vs. M/S Advance Enzyme Technologies Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S Advance Biochemicals Ltd), Thane

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 812/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.812/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Circle – 1 M/S Advance Enzyme Technologies Ltd 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park (Formerly Known As Advance Biochemicals Ltd.) बिाम A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Sun Magnetica R. No. 22, B-Wing / Lic Service Road, Louis Wadi Wagle Indl. Estate Vs. Thane-400 604 Road No. 16Z, Thane(W) Pin-400 604 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabca-4555-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar – Ld. Sr. Dr Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Haria – Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 28/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

…penalty was levied by Ld. AO on Rs.2.67 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that there was bona fide mistake in the computation of income and therefore, no penalty was to be levied as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT V/s Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. (348 ITR 306). 3.3 The third addition against which the penalty has been levied is disallowance u/s 36(i)(va) for Rs.5,618/- for delayed payment of Provident fund and ESIC. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the same by observing that it was not the case that the assessee failed to furnish the details. There was only late payment but the genuineness and validity of the c…

Ashwin Vaghasia, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 374/SRT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.374/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2006-07) (Virtual Court Hearing) Ashwin Vaghasia V The Income Tax Officer, 35, Sahyog Chambers Mini Bazar, S. Ward-3(1)(1), Surat. Sardar Chowk, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abmpv2520M (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, C.A. Respondent By : Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To A.Y.2006-07 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat, [Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cas-3/Trfd/V/270/2014-15 Dated 25.10.2017, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 19.03.2014. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Is That Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Of Rs.4,07,023/- Under Section 271(1) (C ) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.Brief Facts As Discernible From The Orders Of Lower Authorities Are That Assessee Is An Individual Before Us & He Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 01.02.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 4,97,432/- Which Inter

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. We are very much conscious of Hon'ble Apex Court’s landmark decision in case of Price ITA No.374/SRT/2017 for A.Y. 2006-07 Ashwin Vaghasia Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd. [(348 ITR 306)(SC)], wherein it was held that "Imposition of penalty "would be unwarranted in a case where the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars". 12. Considering the peculiar facts of the assessee`s case, as narrated above, the impositi…

Shri Navnit Mulchand Shah, Kheda vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kheda Circle, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2672/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2672/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Shri Navnit Mulchand Shah, D.C.I.T, 12, Darpan Society, Vs. Kheda Circle, Naranpura, Nadiad. Ahmedabad-380013. Pan: Ajwps7649Q

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 136Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 2672/AHD/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Shri Navnit Mulchand Shah, D.C.I.T, 12, Darpan Society, Vs. Kheda Circle, Naranpura, Nadiad. Ahmedabad-380013. PAN: AJWPS7649Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.P. Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10/06/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 23/06/2…

Vijay P. Manjarekar, Mumbai vs. ITO - 25 (1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5912/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5912/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Vijay P. Manjrekar Ito-25(1)(4) बनाम/ Flat No.201, Bmc Employees Parimal Chs Ltd. Mumbai – 400 020. Shimpoli Road, Shimpoli Vs. Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Alhpm-1352-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri K.K.Lalkaka-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 24/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Lalkaka-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

…t could not be said that the assessee failed to offer any explanation as to wrong claim or the explanation furnished by the assessee was untrue. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. V/s CIT(348 ITR 306) which held that no penalty would be leviable in case of bona-fide explanation, we are inclined to delete the impugned penalty. The adjudication of issue, on legal grounds, have thus been rendered merely academic in nature. 7. The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 24th May, 2021. (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj…

Shri Deshpal Singh Kohli, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1949/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Deshpal Singh Kohli, Vs Dcit, 46, Saharanpur Road, Dehradun. Dehradun. Pan: Acgpk1599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kanwal Juneja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vinay Singh Rawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28Th January, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-4, Kanpur, Relating To The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.1,44,200/- By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) & Confirmed By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Kanwal Juneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Singh Rawat, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…sustained by the AO it does not make the assessee liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee can always make new plea. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PricewaterhouseCoopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 348 ITR 306 (SC), he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deleted the penalty on account of bona fide mistake committed. He accordingly submitted that on merit the penalty is not leviable. 6. In his second plank of argument, the ld. counsel, referring to the copy of the notice issued by the AO, submitted that the inappropriate words in the penalty n…

Harvansh Chawla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9547/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

…/AO erred in not appreciating the fact that appellant relied on the opinion of the expert, thus the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC).” 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment. The assessment u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide order dated 3 ITA Nos.-9545 & 9547/Del/2019 28.12.2011. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made various disallowances and added the sa…

Harvansh Chawla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9545/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 40Section 40(1)(ia)

…/AO erred in not appreciating the fact that appellant relied on the opinion of the expert, thus the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC).” 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment. The assessment u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide order dated 3 ITA Nos.-9545 & 9547/Del/2019 28.12.2011. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made various disallowances and added the sa…

Kamala Shiva Kumar, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Kamala Shiva Kumar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(3), Hyderabad. Pan – Apkpk 1463 N (Appellants) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2009-10 Is Directed Against The Cit(A) - 6, Hyderabad’S Order, Dated 12/01/2018 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ; In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…onceal anything because every fact was disclosed and was part of the record to show the assessee voluntarily surrendered Rs. 45 lakhs. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306/211 Taxman 40/25 taxmann.com 400 in which though everything had been mentioned in the tax audit report but was not disallowed while preparing the computation of income, it was held that it was a case of inadvertent mistake and no penalty was leviable for concealment. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court…

Konkan Co-Op Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-21(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4762/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2021AY 2010-11
Section 194ISection 2(24)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,’H’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Konkan Co-operative Housing Vs. Income Tax Officer- Society Limited 21(2)(1) Konkan Nagar, K Wing Present Jurisdiction-DCIT- 1st Floor, Lt. Prakash Kotnis Marg, 21(2) Mahim (West), Mumbai-400016 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai-400012 PAN/GIR No.AAAAK3406F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajendra Kodrekar Revenue by Ms. Bharati Singh Date of Hearing 16/03/2021 Date of Pronouncement 21/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in…

ACIT 25 (3), Mumbai vs. Pravin Viram Satra, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5505/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 40

…lars of income by the assessee in the return of income as every detail thereon could be deciphered easily from the return itself. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pricewaterhouse Coopers reported in 348 ITR 306 (SC) . Hence we have no hesitation in directing the ld AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in respect of this addition of Rs 4,30,800/- 9.6. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and ld AO is directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the total sum of Rs 11,17,600/-. 10. In the…

M/S. Abbott Cold Storages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5819/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 271(1)(c)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5819/DEL/2014 (A.Y 2010-11) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Abbott Cold Storages Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 80, M.M Janpath Circle-1(1) New Delhi New Delhi AADCA5441M (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) Appellant by Sh. R. K. Kapoor, CA Respondent by Sh. Ashok Gautam, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement 23.03.2021 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 07/08/2014 passed by CIT (A)-IV for assessment…

Rasex Traders Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1174/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT), ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM M/s. Rasex Traders Private Vs. The ACIT-5(3)(1) Limited Mumbai 139C, Noman Mansion Kemps Corner, Near Shalimar Hotel Mumbai – 400 036 PAN/GIR No. AACCR9605B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Bharat Andhle Date of Hearing 18/02/2021 Date of Pronouncement 08/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.1174/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2014-15 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai in appeal No…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ruby Mills Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3958/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dcit Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/S. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6Th Floor 11Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan/Gir No.Aaact0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL), ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM DCIT Central Circle 8(4) Vs. M/s. Ruby Mills Ltd., Room No.658, 6th Floor 11th Floor Aayakar Bhavan Ruby House, J.K. Sawant M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Dadar (W) Mumbai – 400 028 PAN/GIR No.AAACT0220G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Sajit V. Nair Assessee by Ms. Hema Sharma Date of Hearing 18/01/2021 Date of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 29/03/20…