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 366,339 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

Illies Engineering India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 109/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Michael Jerald, DR

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

…rd loss has not been set off subsequently and the assessee has huge carry forward assessed losses of earlier years which were otherwise available for set off. On the above, the Ld. counsel relies on the decision in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT – 348 ITR 306 – SC, Hotel Sahil Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No. 5857/Mum/2017), Omega Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (ITA No. 5216/Mum/2018) and DCIT v. Israni Investments Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 386/Mum/2017). 10 Illies Engg. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the order of the AO in levying a…

Smt. Shiva Bhatia, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1108/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1108/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Smt. Shiva Bhatia, Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. 49-A, New Colony, Gumanpura, Central Circle Kota. Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahtpb 1598 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 2, Udaipur Dated 28/06/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 In The Matter Of Confirmation Of Penalty Imposed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Effective Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 On The Alleged Undisclosed Salary Income Of Rs. 1,80,000/- Received From M/S Bhatia Corporation Pvt. Ltd. By Not Accepting The Explanation Of Assessee That Such Salary Income Was Inadvertently Left To Be Included At The Time Of Filing The Return.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…d the same for taxation. Thus, the omission of salary from income declared in the ROI filed u/s 153A is a bonafide mistake. On such bonafide mistake no penalty is leviable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306, wherein, in this case the assessee firm filed its return of income along with tax audit report. In its tax audit report, it was indicated that provision towards payment of gratuity was not allowable but it failed to add provision for gratuity to its total income. It was held that it was a bona fide and inadvertent error. The same can only be des…

Usk Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 27(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6426/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 24(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…n inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- a) ACIT vs. Krishna C. Tandon (HUF) in ITA No. 2048/Mum/2016 (Mum. Tri.) b) CIT vs. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. 33 Taxmann.com 227(Bom. HC) c) Price Waterhouse Coopers vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) d) CIT vs. Societex ITA No. 1190/2017 dated 19.07.2012 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer as well as penalty order and order of CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee company furnished rent agreement during the assessment p…

Bobbiti Sushma, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1030/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri T.Rajendra Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

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

…actual service tax paid and that claimed (supra) at the assessee’s behest. The same appears to have arisen on account of assessee’s auditor’s certificate issued inadvertently. Hon'ble apex court decision in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT (2012) [348 ITR 306] (SC) holds in such a case of an inadvertent mistake in raising a claim is neither concealment nor that of filing of inaccurate particulars of income. Their lordships yet another decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd., [322 ITR 158] (SC) also settled the law much earlier that - quantum and penalty are distinct proceedings wherein each…

Advent Computer Services Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Company Ward 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 222/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.222/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. Advent Computer Services Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O.M/S. Anil Nair Associates Income Tax, Casa Blanca, 1St Floor,11,Casa Major Company Ward-1(1), Road. Egmore, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 008. Pan:Aacea 0326L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…efore the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its arguments taken before the Assessing Officer along with certain judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306. The learned CIT(A), after considering the relevant facts and also by following certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of JCIT Vs. Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.4278 of 2010 arising out of SLP(C) No. 5241 of 2007 held that the contention of the assessee that it has ina…

Dhunji Framroze Titina, Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2879/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं. 2879/मुं/2018 (िन. व. 2009-10) Shri Dhunji Framroze Titina C/O Savant & Co., Chartered Accountants 12, Shashank Society, 444, Manmala Tank Road, Matunga (W), Mumbai-400016 ...... अपीलाथ$ /Appellant Pan: Aaept4451G बनाम Vs. Ito 5(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... %ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave (AR)For Respondent: Shri Vijay Jaiswal (DR)

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

…ugned Assessment Year was an inadvertent bonafide mistake and hence, no penalty should have been levied for making such claim. The ld. AR in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [348 ITR 306 (SC)] 2. CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [322 ITR 158(SC)] 3. CIT vs. Makino Asia Pvt. Ltd. (40 taxmann.com 169 (Kar.) The ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed appeal against the order levying penalty, however, the CIT(A) without appreciating the facts and the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal of assessee.…

M/S Vanshee Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Sundar Rajan, D.R

Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)

…e. Accordingly, he submitted that the mistake or error represents bonafide mistake and it has happened inadvertently. The Ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse coopers P Ltd vs. CIT (2012)(348 ITR 306) and submitted that the penalty should not be levied for erroneous clerical mistakes. 8. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee has obtained audit report in Form no.29B on 03-09-2011 itself and the auditor has computed the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs.1,52,18,852/-. However, in the return of income filed on 30-09- 201…

Arun Gupta HUF, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in its favour

ITA 1538/HYD/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Oct 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Asst. Years: 2005-06 Sri Arun Gupta (Huf), Vs. Acit, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), Pan: Aahha 7572 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Smt. K.J. Divya – Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2020 Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. K.J. Divya – DR

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual hearing) Asst. Years: 2005-06 Sri Arun Gupta (HUF), Vs. ACIT, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), PAN: AAHHA 7572 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Smt. K.J. Divya – DR Date of hearing: 07/10/2020 Date of pronouncement: 12/10/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-9, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0194/IACIT, Circle-6(1)/20-15-1…

Arun Gupta (HUF), Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

ITA 704/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Babu – DR

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 5A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 523, 524, 516, 704/Hyd/2016 Asst. Years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2007-08 Sri Arun Gupta (HUF), Vs. ACIT, Hyderabad. Circle-6(1), PAN: AAHHA 7572 A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Shri Ravi Babu – DR Date of hearing: 29/09/2020 Date of pronouncement: 05/10/2020 ORDER PER BENCH: All these appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A)—9, Hyderabad in appeal Nos. 0077…

Arun Gupta (HUF), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

ITA 524/HYD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Babu – DR

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 5A

Arun Gupta (HUF), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

ITA 523/HYD/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Babu – DR

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 5A

Arun Gupta (HUF), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed in its favour

ITA 516/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Oct 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Babu – DR

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 5A

Emco Dyestuff Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A)- 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5576/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Emco Dyestuff Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Unit No.304, Western Edge Tax(A)-20, 5Th Floor, Earnest House, W.E. Highway Dattapada Road Nariman Point Borivali (E) Mumbai-400021 Mumbai – 400 066 Pan/Gir No.Aaace1167D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Gopal Revenue By Shri Amit Pratap Singh Date Of Hearing 24/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2020

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32

…proceedings, then there cannot be any concealment of particulars of income that can be attributed on the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water Coopers (P) Ltd., vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 306. We also find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 158 had observed with regard to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as under:- “9. We are not concerned in the present case with the mens rea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter o…

M/S Flemmingo Travel Retail Ltd.(Formerly Known As Dfs India P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 9 (3) (2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1197/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Flemingo Travel Retail Dcit –9(3)(2) Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Limited (Formerly Known As Dfs India Pvt. Ltd.), Chhatrapati Shivaji Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, International Airport, New Vs. Mumbai 400020 Terminal 2, Csi Airport, Sahar, Mumbai. Pan – Aaccd7412N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, Sr.D.R

Section 1Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 43(1)

…ng of ‗Explanation 1‘ to Sec. 115JB. Apart from that, the assessee in support of its claim that no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be imposed for bona fide mistakes, had relied on the judgment of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC). 9. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative had relied before us on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of M/s Flemingo Travel Retail Ltd. Vs. DCIT- 9(3)(2), Mumbai ITA No. 1197/Mum/2020 - A.Y 2014-15 11 income, therefore, the A.O had rightly…

Subhash Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (DCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e costs of acquisition at the time of computation of capital gain. It was a bonafide and unintentional mistake which was rectified during the course of assessment itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Price Water House Coopers P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 held that ‘ the assessee should have been careful but in absence of due care in a case did not mean that assessee was guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal the income. Thus no penalty can be levied for a bona fide/inadvertent/human error’. 7 Shri Subhash Sharma, Jaipur. 5.3. Further Hon'ble M.P. High Court…

Value Line Equities P. Ltd ( Formerly Knwoan As M.S Sb & T Securities P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 4605/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4605/Mumbai/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, AR byFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM& SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4605/Mumbai/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) ACIT Cir 4(2), M/s Valueline Equities AayakarBhavan, M. K. Private Limited Road, Mumbai-400 020 405, Appejay House 4th बिधम/ floor, 130 Mumbai, Vs. Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAACS6170Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Ravikant Pathak, AR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Bharati Singh, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05.03.2020 Date of Hearing घ…

Smt. Kumudini V. Gavit, Nandurbar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Dhule

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1912/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1912/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Maruti W. Maddewad

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…y cannot be levied where a bona-fide claim of the assessee was rejected by the tax department. We observe that the instant case of the assessee is akin to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 SC. In that case, the crux of the issue for consideration was whether there was a bona fide and inadvertent error on the part of the assessee, warranting no imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court, although undoubtedly the assessee is a reputed firm and has great expertise available with it, despite thi…

Biax Electric & Controls P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4702/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’ Ble Shri G. Manjunathabiax Electric & Controls Vs. Ito-9(1)(2) 2Nd Floor Pvt.Ltd. Gala No.108A, Rizvi Aaykar Bhawan Chambers, Hill Road Mumbai-400 020 Near Lucky Hotel Bandra West Mumbai-400 050 Pan/Gir No.Aabcb6347D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri. N.R.Agarwal, Ar Revenue By Ms. Samatha Mullamudi, Jcit-Dr

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

…eal particulars of income, which warrants levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT s Reliance Petro Products Pvt.Ltd. 322 ITR 158(SC) and CIT vs Price Waterhouse Coopers 348 ITR 306 (SC). 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand strongly supported order of the Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that the assessee has made a wrong claim of deduction towards trading profit, even though the law is very clear, in respect of claim of deduction u/s 80IB(4) of the Act, where it is clearly specified that only a manufacturer of goods and articl…

M/S. Frontier Business Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1568/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaranm/S Frontier Business Systems Pvt.Ltd., No.3, Wood Street, Ashok Nagar, Bangalore-560 013 Pan No.Aaacf2942H Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. R.Premi,Jcit Date Of Hearing : 10-06-2020 Date Of Pronouncement : -06-2020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. R.Premi,JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…impugned expenses as some other allowable expense and the AO has found the same to be CSR expenditure. Hence the explanation of the assessee appears to be a bonafide one. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Cooper (P) Ltd Vs CIT (2012) 25 Taxmann.com 400 has held that penalty is not leviable on a bonafide and inadvertent error committed by the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the view that the ld.CITA) was not justified in confirming the penalty levied on this disallowance also. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the impugned penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the…

Arrow Digital Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1568/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Arrow Digital Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, 1005-06, 10Th Floor, Vs. Cirle-1(1)(1) Aditya Complex, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-38006. Pan: Aaeca2215J

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1568/AHD/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Arrow Digital Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, 1005-06, 10th Floor, Vs. Cirle-1(1)(1) Aditya Complex, Ahmedabad. C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-38006. PAN: AAECA2215J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R Revenue by : Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr.D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 10/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 05/03/2020 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM…