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

M.Karthikeyan, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Business Circle 1, Tambaram

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

ITA 1900/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1900/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Muthushankar, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)

…said to be received from M/s Maytas Infra Ltd. Even if the assessee has not disclosed receipt from M/s Maytas Infra Ltd., this is only omission. It cannot be considered to be concealed as held by Apex Court in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that this is not fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the as…

Sandeep Bhimrao Lad, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3, Thane

ITA 1620/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1620/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271Section 274

…(2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) 15. GIT v/s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd (2010)322ITR0158(SC) 16.UOI v/s Raiasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2010)1GSTR 66(SC) 17 CIT V/s Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 317 ITR 1 (SC) 18. Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd.V/s CIT (2012)348 ITR 306(SC) 19. CIT V/s SomamrEvergreen Knits Ltd (2013)352ITR592(Bom.) 20. CIT V/s Smt Kaushalya (1994)75 Taxman 549 (Bombay) 21.Maharai Garage & Co. V/s CIT Naqpur 85 taxmann.comSG (Bombay 22. (1970) 77 ITR 107(SC1 Jain Brothers Vs Union of India Regarding limbs of Notice 23. Karnataka High Court Judgment in M/s Maniunatha Cotton Ginning Factory o…

Rukmangadhar Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO Salary Ward II(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1504/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1504/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni

Section 271(1)(c)

…ight omitted to disclose the consultation charges which was subjected to TDS, whether there was any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income? The Apex Court examined this issue in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 and found that by inadvertent mistake, when the income was not disclosed to the Department that cannot be a reason to levy penalty. In view of this judgment of Apex Court, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that an inadvertent omission to disclose the income 4 I.T.A. No.1504/Chny/19 which was subject matter to TDS cannot be a reason to…

Ashtavinayak Construction, Navi Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir. 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5367/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Ashtavinayaka Jcit Circle 22(3), Mumbai. Construction, Vs. Plot No. R-478, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Rabale, Navi Mumbai- 400701. Pan No. Aadfa1724G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bhadresh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.K. Mishra, DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IT M/s Ashtavinayaka Constructions 5 v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 0158(SC), UOI v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2010) 1 GSTR 66 (SC), CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 317 ITR 1 (SC), Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2012)348 ITR 306(SC), CIT v. Somany Evergreen Knits Ltd (2013)352 ITR 592 (Bom.), CIT v. Smt. Kaushalya (1994) 75 Taxman 549 (Bombay), Maharaj Garage & Co. v. CIT Nagpur 85 taxmann.com 86 (Bombay), Jain Brothers Vs Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107(SC) and M/s Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory. 7. In a rejoinder the Ld. counsel files a written submission in respo…

Enefpy Fashions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7647/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Enefpy Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, F-29, Top Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Circle-8(1), Phase-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadcp5697A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Arora, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4Th September, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-3, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.4,33,050/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By The Assessing Officer Which Has Been Partially Reduced By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

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

…entioning the value for which all these mistakes occurred and the mistake was not deliberate. Further, the returned income was accepted as such. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 348 ITR 306, he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision 2 for gratuity to its total income which can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. Caliber and expertise of the assessee has…

M/S.Paytronic Network Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1417/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 276CSection 36Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ITA No.1417 & 1418/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Paytronic Network Vs. D.C.I.T., Pvt. Ltd., Circle- 7(1) 4th Floor, Sadhana House, Aayakar Bhawan, 570, Pandurang Budhkar Mumbai. Marg, Worli, Mumbai- 400018. PAN/GIR No.AAECP 2622 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Jitendra Jain/Mr. Mahesh/ Shri O. Rajora (ARs) Revenue by Shri Chaudhary Arun K. Singh (DR) Date of Hearing 29/08/2019 Date of Pronouncement 18/09/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. These appeals by the assessee are…

Kantilal De vs. Hibhai Fuletra, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 464/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…bove income. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Badshah Parshad Vs. CIT, 127 ITA 601 (Patna) ii) Rave Entertainment P.Ltd. Vs. CIT, 376 ITR 544 (All); iii) Garden Silk Weaving Factor, 172 ITR 575; iv) Price Water House, 348 ITR 306 (SC) ITA No.462 to 464/RJT/2017 3 5. On due consideration of the above facts, we find that the assessee has not deliberately withheld the information from the department. He has been misguided by the employer as well as management of the cooperative bank, hence under a misconception of law, he failed to disclose the interest income. Otherwise, w…

Kantilal De vs. Hibhai Fuletra, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 463/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Kantilal De vs. Hibhai Fuletra, Rajkot

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 462/RJT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Hotel Sahil Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5857/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hotel Sahil Pvt Ltd Vs Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai 292, J B Behram Marg Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 080 Pan : Aaach1038G Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 273BSection 274

…otice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c), the assessee sufficiently explained as per section 273B of the Act. In support of his submission the ld AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Price Water Coopers Pvt Ltd (PWC) vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). ITA 5857/Mum/2017 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The Ld. DR submits that had the return was not taken up for scrutiny, the income of assessee would have been escaped from assessment with respect to sale of fixed assets (motor car) and prior period expenses. 5. We have considered…

M/S. Apollo Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5709/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10. M/S Appollo Finance Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 414/1, 4Th Floor, Dda Circle-3(1), New Delhi Commercial Complex, Distt. Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi Pan :Aaaca5354J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manu K. Giri, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar, Sr.Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10. M/s Appollo Finance Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 414/1, 4th Floor, DDA Circle-3(1), New Delhi Commercial Complex, Distt. Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi PAN :AAACA5354J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Manu K. Giri, Adv. Respondent by Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar, Sr.DR Date of hearing 06.08.2019 Date of pronouncement 09.08.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 09/08/2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner o…

M/S. Jaykamal Finance and Securities P. Ltd., Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1464/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1464/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Jaykamal Finance & Securities Private Limited. P.C Patil & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Survey No. 148/1/2, Plot No.10, 1St Floor, “Swaraj Building”, Kalamkar Park, Near Jupiter Hospital, Baner-411 045. Pan : Aaacj8748H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.C. Malakar

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1464/PUN/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s. Jaykamal Finance and Securities Private Limited. P.C Patil & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Survey No. 148/1/2, Plot No.10, 1st Floor, “SWARAJ Building”, Kalamkar Park, Near Jupiter Hospital, Baner-411 045. PAN : AAACJ8748H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri B.C. Malakar…

Chase Buildcone Projects Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 69/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri P. D. Shah, A.R

…dishonest conduct and is not malafide. It was thus contended that the case of the assessee is thus governed by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Limited (322 ITR 158) (sc); Price Waterhouse Coopers vs. CIT (348 ITR 306) (SC) & BTX Chemicals Private Limited (288 ITR 196) (Guj). ITA No. 69/Ahd/18 [Chase Buildcon Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO] AY 2011-12 - 3 - 4. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has claimed loss on forfeiture of Rs.7 Lakhs which is misleading. The learned DR further pointed out that the assessee has not made any attemp…

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Zeal Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2506/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2506/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri N. Gopikrishna, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 271(1)(c)

…nder deduction. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when a claim was made in the return of income as revenue expenditure in respect of payment of compensation and the same was pertaining to assessment year 2010-11, that alone Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty, hence the same is confirmed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 6 I.T.A. No.2506/Chny/16 Order pronounced in the court on 18th July, 2019 at Chennai. sd/- sd/- (इंटूर" रामा राव) (एन.आर.एस.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/PUN/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.425/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012 Pan: Aaaca4047D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R Murlidhar &For Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa

Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 35D(2)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.425/PUN/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012 PAN: AAACA4047D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R Murlidhar & Shri Prashant Gandhi Revenue by : Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 17.07.…

Jaipur National University, Jaipur vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur

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

ITA 1457/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)

Section 17(2)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

…essee, therefore, no penalty 7 ITA 1456 & 1457/JP/2018 Jaipur National University Vs Addl.CIT(TDS) should be imposed. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Filtrex Technologies (P) Ltd. 232 Taxman 0811 and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Woodward Governors India (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (2001) 118 Taxman 433 (Delhi). 9. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/S. Eli Lilly & Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Civ…

Jaipur National University, Jaipur vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur

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

ITA 1456/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)

Section 17(2)Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

Mitsuboshi Belting India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Range 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 448/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 44A

…No. 1296/Pun/2015)  DCIT vs Purti Sakhar Karkhana Ltd (153 TTJ 12) (Nagpur ITAT Penalty cannot be levied on bonfide and inadvertent error of the assessee :-  Reliance Petrochemical Pvt Ltd (322 ITR 158) (Supreme Court)  Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 348 ITR 306 (Supreme Court) Penalty cannot be levied when assessee voluntarily discloses wrong claim during assessment proceedings.  CIT vs Blue Star Ltd (357 ITR 669) (Bom HC) approving the decision of the ITAT dated 20 July 2012 (ITA No. 4481/Mum/2011 10. Per contra, learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 1…

Rasai Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-13(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodrasai Properties Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 3, Sarovar Building, Income Tax-13(3)(1), Vasant Complex, 219, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mahavir Nagar, Link Road, M.K. Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400067 Pan – Aaccr7432E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Nilesh Kumar Bavaliya, A.R Respondent By: Shri D.G. Pansari, Sr. D.R Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.06.2019

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Kumar Bavaliya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, Sr. D.R

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

…d a bonafide error, and had not intended or attempted to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Cooper Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306. In the said case, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court P a g e | 6 ITA No. 770/Mum/2018 AY. 2013-14 Rasai Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-13(3)(1) taking cognizance of the fact that the assessee had failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income, had therein observed that the assessee had made a bonafide error in computin…

Bhoomivijay Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-9(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7396/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…g date of approval of the project. In view of fact situation that is existing herein, in our considered opinion, the reliance placed by the Representative of the assessee on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers vs CIT, 348 ITR 306(SC) as well as in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (supra) clearly support the stand of the assessee that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not merited. : 9 : 7396/Mum/17 M/s. Bhoomi Vijay Properties Pvt Ltd 9. At the time of hearing, the ld. Representative for the assessee also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the ca…