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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1), Hubballi vs. Shri Sadashivayya S Soppimath, Hubbali

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 14/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Misra, JCIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri S.V Ravishankar, Advocate

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…regard to the disallowance of interest expenditure of Rs.1.05 lakhs, we have earlier noticed that said disallowance was made only for want of proof. In our view the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd., 348 ITR 306 would support the case of the assessee in respect of long term capital gain and the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd., 322 ITR 158 would support the case of the assessee in the case of interest disallowance. The decision in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Page 9 of 10 Ltd. (supra), in our view, was…

M/S. Mitutoyo South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6051/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 147Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 94(7)

…nalty should have been levied being bonafide and unintentional mistake that too on the issue where two opinions exist. In support of the contention he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water Coopers P. Ltd. Vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (Supreme Court). 4 ITA No. 6051/Del./2016 4. The Learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee has offered the amounts in dispute only after pointed out by the Assessing Officer and there was no suo-motu surrender or offer by the assessee. He referred to page 6 of the assessment orde…

M/S Swani Spices Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 383/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Lajari Oswal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 194ASection 201Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Swani Spices Mills Pvt. Ltd., ACIT-1(3)(1), 4, Hari Niwas, C Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AACFS3436J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Lajari Oswal, AR Revenue by : Mr. V. Vinod Kumar, DR Date of Hearing : 17/02/2020 Date of pronouncement : 26/02/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2014-15. The appeal is…

Smt. Swarn Durgia, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1326/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1326/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke Smt. Swarn Durgia The Ito Vs. 57, Vidyut Abhiyanta Colony Ward- 6(1) Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Ahfpd 9413 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L.Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri K.C. Gupta, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25 /02/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

…the inaccurate particulars 4 Smt.Swarn Durgia vs ITO, Ward- 6(1), Jaipur of income or concealment of particulars of income. The ld.AR of the assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd. vs CIT , 348 ITR 306 (SC) and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the mistake on the part of the Chartered Accountant in not detecting the mistake about the allowability of the provisions towards payment of Gratuity was a bona fide and inadvertent error and thereby the assessee was not guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars of income…

International Tractors Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6098/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

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

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…only 0.08% of the returned income, 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.) 3 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 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 assessme…

Omega Corrugators Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5216/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Omega Corrugators Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Ward No.4(3), Thane Gala No.1, Building No.2 Asher It Park, A-Wing Shivalay Industrial Estate Room No.14, Chinchpada, Gokhiware Wagle Industrial Estate Vasai Road (East) Thane (West) – 400 064 Dist: Thane Maharashtra – 401 208 Pan/Gir No. Aaaco6250D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(7)

…d been duly paid by it and the genuine omission made by it should not be penalised. 3 M/s. Omega Corrugators P. Ltd The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 348 ITR 306 in support of his contention. The ld. CIT(A) however, ignored the contentions of the assessee and held that the mistake committed by the assessee was not bonafide and accordingly confirmed the levy of penalty in the sum of Rs.1,07,262/-. 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We find that the fact stated hereinabove remain undispu…

Rheal Software P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 670/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabcr8008B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, DR

Section 10BSection 139(5)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 274r

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rheal Software Pvt. Ltd., Dy. CIT-8(3), Mumbai. 901, Premium Tower, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. PAN No. AABCR8008B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ronak Doshi, AR Revenue by : Shri D.G. Pansari, DR Last Date of Hearing : 15/11/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 10/02/2020 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against t…

Shaheen M Mujawar, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 742/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…ation at a higher amount, that by itself would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC) had expounded that an inadvertent error cannot lead to rigours of penalty. Furthermore, a larger bench of the Honourable Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (SC) had expounded that when the conduct of the assessee is not 4 Shaheen M. Mujawar contumacious, the authority may not levy the penalty. That techni…

M/S. Doon Valley Roller Flour Mills Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1047/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50Section 50BSection 50C

…ng Officer to complete the assessment. Assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Private Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158 and also in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Private Limitedvs. CIT 348 ITR 306 in support of its contention that merely because the assessee had claimed slump sale basing on the auditors certificate in form 3CEA, which they gave up in order to purchase peaceand to avoid unwanted litigation,the assessee cannot be charged with furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Ld. CIT(A), however, did not concede the plea taken…

Shri Yash Bhatia, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

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

ITA 1142/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Roonipal (JCIT)

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1142/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke Sh. Yash Bhatia The DCIT, Vs. 49-A, New Colony, Central Circle, Gumanpura, Kota. Kota. ToLFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGGPB 8006 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Roonipal (JCIT)…

The Baramulla Central Coperative Bank Ltd, Kashmir vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 359/ASR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

…ingh and Co. 253 ITR 630 (P&H) 2. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mehta Engineers Ltd. 300 ITR 308 (P&H) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). 4. Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 348 ITR 306 (SC). 5. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. D.V Bapat Income Tax Officer 101 ITR 292 (Bom).” 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO has made addition on the basis of facts d…

DCIT 29(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Sandeep S. Tamhankar, Mumbai

ITA 5535/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-29(3), Room No.208, Second Floor, C- Shri Sandeep S. Tamhankar, 706, Green 10, Pratyankshakar Bhavan, B.K.C., Bandra Acres, Off B.R. Road, Yogi Hills, Mulund(W) Vs. (East), Mumbai 400 051 Mumbai 400 080

For Appellant: Shri V.Vinod Kumar, ld. Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vishesh Srivastav, ld.AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…sessee could not have been saddled with penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) for the aforesaid bonafide mistake on his part. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers Pvt. ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). In the aforesaid case, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had observed that an assessee cannot be visited with penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) for bonafide mistakes on its part. As such, finding no infirmity with the view taken by the CIT(A), who we find had rightly vacated the penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) in respect of the aforesaid addition of interest…

Shabbir E. Boxwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(4) Now ITO-16(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4303/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodshabbir E. Boxwala Ito-11(1)(4), 40/401, Shabbir Apartments, [Now, Ito-16(1)(4) Vs. Sherley, Rajan Road, Mumbai] Bandra (W), Mumbai. Pan – Aabcc8160D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Acharya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…t, however, a levy of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) merely for the said bonafide mistake would be totally unjustified. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). We thus „set aside‟ the penalty imposed by the A.O in respect of the addition of the Income Tax refund of Rs.2,455/-. 14. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we vacate the penalty aggregating to Rs.2,44,811/- imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c), which thereafter had been sustained by the CIT(A). 15. Resultantly, the appeal filed…

CIT-2, Bhopal vs. Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Raisen

In the result, both the appeals of revenue in case of Sewa

ITA 858/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2009-10 Cit,-2 Sewa Sahakari Samiti, बनाम/ Bhopal Raisen Bharkacha Vs. (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Aafts5908N Assessment Year: 2009-10 Cit,-2 Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti, बनाम/ Bhopal Maryadit, Bhaisaya Badi Vs. Raisen (Revenue) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaak9049E

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)

…back the Provisions for bad & doubtful 5 Sewa & Krashak Sewa Sahakari Samiti Yaryadit ITANo.857/Ind/2018 & ITANo.858/Ind/2018 debt. Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of 'Price waterhouse Coopers Private Limited Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC)' it was held that "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…

CIT-2, Bhopal vs. Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Raisen

In the result, both the appeals of revenue in case of Sewa

ITA 857/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)

D.C.I.T. - 12(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Movida India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 640/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sooddcit-12(3)(2), M/S Movida India Private Limited Room No.147B, 1St Floor, 903, Shreenath Chs Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Liberty Garden, Malad (W), Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 064

For Appellant: Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, D.RFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.R

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

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.640/Mum/2018 AY. 2012-13 DCIT-12(3)(2) Vs. M/s Movida India Private Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member DCIT-12(3)(2), M/s Movida India Private Limited Room No.147B, 1st Floor, 903, Shreenath CHS Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Liberty Garden, Malad (W), Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 064 PAN – AAFCM8455K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, D.R Respondent by: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.R Date of Hearing: 17.10.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 22.11.2019 O…

Sunila Awasthi, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-61(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3611/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…eld that it is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of particulars of income. Reliance was placed on various decisions including the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT-SC (2012) 348 ITR 306. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the CIT (A) and further submitted that there was a clear cut concealment of professional receipts during the year as the correct amount was not offered to tax and therefore, it is a fit case for levy of penalty. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the releva…

Addison & Company Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.517/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT

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

…noticing the mistake the appellant agreed to addition and additions made on account of inadvertent mistakes does not entail the penalty. Placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC). On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) placed reliance on the orders of lower authorities. 4. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in this case relates to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The addition in respect of which the penalty was levied by the AO was agre…

Vip Clothing Limited (Formerly Known As Maxwell Industries Ltd.), Thane vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6322/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G. Manjunatha: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Smt. Samatha Mullamudi

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

…e rate of depreciation @ 50% is a bona fide mistake and hence, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act should be levied. To support this contention, the learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions : (i) Pricewaterhousecoopers (P) Ltd. vs CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC); (ii) PCIT vs Bunge India (P) Ltd., 407 ITR 225 (Bom.). 3. Per contra, Smt. Samatha Mullamudi representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for confirming the levy of penalty. 3 VIP Clothing Ltd. 4. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authoritie…

Aarti Projects and Constructions, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6104/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6104/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Aarti Projects & Constructions Dcit-Central Circle-5(1) Room No.1928, 19Th Floor Plaza Panchseel, “A” Wing बनाम/ 5Th Floor, 501 Hughes Road Air India Building Vs. Behind Dharam Palace, Grant Road(W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefa-5526-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Pavan Ved-Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore –Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore –Ld.DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

…1 Aarti Projects & Constructions Assessment Year -2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ऐ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6104/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Aarti Projects & Constructions DCIT-Central Circle-5(1) Room No.1928, 19th Floor Plaza Panchseel, “A” Wing बनाम/ 5th Floor, 501 Hughes Road Air India Building Vs. Behind Dharam Palace, Grant Road(W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400 021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआ…