← All Phrases

“Section 155(18)”

Section References (mined)Section 155Section 155(18)15 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 155(18) is Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT (117 Taxmann.com 96), cited in 291 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 155(18)

Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT
117 Taxmann.com 96 · 2020 · High Court
291
citing judgments

Education cess paid on total income and dividend distribution tax are allowable deductions for income tax purposes.

CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Ltd.
288 ITR 585 · 2007 · High Court
39
citing judgments

Penalty for concealment of income cannot be imposed merely due to a difference of opinion between the taxpayer and the Assessing Officer; there must be an intention to evade tax liability.

ACIT v. Jindal Power Ltd.
70 Taxmann.com 389 · 2016 · ITAT
30
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred voluntarily for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) purposes is not disallowed if Section 37(1) Explanation 2, which applies to statutory obligations, is not triggered. Additionally, Section 37 is prospective from AY 2015-16, making it inapplicable for AY 2013-14 disallowances.

Jaipuria Samla Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. v. CIT
82 ITR 580 · 1971 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

The expression 'profits or gains of any business or profession' refers only to profits and gains determined under Section 29 of the Income-tax Act. Taxes levied upon profits calculated in a manner other than that provided by Section 29 cannot be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ii).

2. 2. CIT v. Calcutta Credit Corporation
166 ITR 29 · 1987 · High Court
18
citing judgments

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable merely because an addition to taxable income has been made. There must be a case made out for penalty, especially if there are two possible interpretations of the facts.

CIT v. Yahoo India (P) Ltd.
33 Taxmann.com 332 · 2013 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Penalty cannot be imposed if a claim is made based on a bona fide interpretation of the law, all material facts are disclosed, and the issue was debatable, especially when the law is amended retrospectively. The mere disallowance of a claim, even if it leads to the amendment of the law, does not automatically warrant a penalty.

Judgments citing Section 155(18)

Shree Swati Texdyes Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2222/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 270ASection 40

270A.” 17. The Tribunal further observed: “When the legislature itself has recognized the debatable nature of the issue and provided a mechanism under section 155(18) enabling assessees to surrender such claims, the levy of penalty in respect of a bona fide claim made prior to the retrospective amendment cannot

Bajaj Auto Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai

ITA 2666/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145(2)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 40

deemed to be under- reported income for the purposes of sub-section (3) of section 270A." 7.2 Pursuant to the amendment made in section 155(18), the Central Board of Direct Taxes, vide Notification No. 111 of 2022 dated 28.09.2022, inserted Rule 132 in the Income-tax Rules, 1962, prescribing ... withdrawing its claim for deduction of education cess, which was to be dealt with by way of rectification under section 155(18) of the Act. 7.4 The assessee contended that once the statutory mechanism under section 155(18) stood triggered and the claim itself was withdrawn, no prejudice

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Liquidhub India Private Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155Section 155(18)Section 18Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 40

issued by Central Board of Direct Taxation (CBDT) and consequently the Appellant is eligible for immunity from levy of penalty under provisions of section 155(18) of the Act. 7. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the proviso to subsection 18 of section 155 empowers ... while concluding the assessment proceedings for this year. We would also like to draw your goodself's kind attention to the provisions of section 155(18) of the Act, wherein it is stated that when an assessee has claimed a deduction of cess in the return of income

Granules India Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1295/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1295/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. Granules India Limited, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Hyderabad. Tax, Pan : Aaacg7369K Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270A

erroneously levied u/s 270A of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that Section 155(18) of the Act specifically provides that the claim for deduction of surcharge or cess shall not be deemed to be under-reported income ... However, as the form itself was not notified at the time of passing of order u/s.143(3) of the Act, the provisions of section 155(18) cannot be applied to levy the penalty u/s.270A of the Act. 6. The assessee company craves your honours leave to add/ alter/ withdraw

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ( Successor of Aricent Technologies Holdings Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

order (which was passed on 30" March 2023) and consequently the Appellant is eligible for immunity from levy of penalty under provisions of section 155(18) of the Act. 7. The Ld. AO CIT (A)has failed to appreciate that the Appellant has reduced the amount of MAT credit ... 18 of section 155. The appellant states that even after timely filing of Form 69 the penalty has been levied. The proviso to Section 155(18) states that the benefit will be given to the assessee in a case where the assessee makes an application in the prescribed form, within

Fil India Business and Research Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3245/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Fil India Business & Research Vs Assessment Unit Services Pvt. Ltd., Private Studio- Income Tax Ncra/Ac/Ps/00/010B, Ground Department, Delhi Floor, Worldmark 1, Asset Area 11, Aerocity, Hospitality District, Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi-110037. Pan-Aabcf1572C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Shri Shitiz Bansal, Ar Respondent By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 920Section 92C(3)

being made. 5.2 Grossly erred in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act despite the fact that proviso to section 155(18) of the Act prescribes that no penalty shall be levied if the Assesee has made an application in the prescribed form

Sony India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 22(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3851/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roysony India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 22 (2), A – 18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (Pan :Aabcs1571Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144Bof The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020- 21Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

case and in law, Ld. AO has erred in proposing to initiate the penalty proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Section 155(18) r.w.s. 270A of the Act even though the section 155(18) of the Act is not applicable on the Appellant as the cumulative requirement of section

Koshambh Multitred Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR
Section 155(18)Section 250Section 270A(2)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(9)Section 40

income. The assessee, before the Ld. CIT(A), had besides reiterating the arguments made before the AO had also taken the plea that section 155(18) of the Act provided for immunity from the levy of penalty on account of the retrospective amendment made under section ... assesee having not made any such application therefore, it was not saved from levy of penalty in terms of 2nd Proviso to section 155(18) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the same the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal

The Ahmedabad District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1108/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 40

retrospective effect and no mala fide could be attributed to the assessee and the procedure for surrendering the claim under section 155(18) of the Act was notified only after the assessment was completed. 4. The CIT(A), after considering the submissions during the appellate proceedings, partly allowed the appeal ... u/s.270A of the Act cannot be levied. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that Section 155(18) of the Act specifically provides that the claim for deduction of surcharge or cess shall not be deemed to be under-reported income

Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Industries Private Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1712/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1712/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Ivl Dhunseri Petrochem Vs Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dhunseri House, 4A Woodburn Park, L.R.Sarani, West Bengal-700020 Pan No. :Aafcd 5214 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ca & Vidhi Ladia, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Pradip Kumar Mondal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26/07/2024, Passed By The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre U/S.143(3) R.W.S.144C(13) R.W.S.144B Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2020-2021 On The Following Grounds :- 1.(A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Tpo Erred In Making A Downward Adjustment Of Rs.24,72,79,392/- In Respect Of The Transfer Value Of Power By The Captive Power Plant At Haldia, West Bengal. (B) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Methodology Followed By The Assessee To Benchmark The Arm'S Length Value Of The Power Transferred By The Eligible Unit To The Non-Eligible Unit Fulfilled The Internal Cup Parameters & In That View Of The Matter The Transfer Pricing Adjustment Made By The Tpo Was Impermissible On The Given Facts & In Law. (C) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Manner In Which The Drp/Tpo Has Benchmarked

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, CA and VidhiFor Respondent: Pradip Kumar Mondal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 80ISection 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “सी” न्यायपीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3851/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roysony India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 22 (2), A – 18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (Pan :Aabcs1571Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144Bof The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020- 21Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

case and in law, Ld. AO has erred in proposing to initiate the penalty proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Section 155(18) r.w.s. 270A of the Act even though the section 155(18) of the Act is not applicable on the Appellant as the cumulative requirement of section

Export Import Bank of India, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2918/MUM/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2019-20 Export Import Bank Of India Pcit, Mumbai-3, Mumbai World Trade Centre Complex, Vs Centre One Building, Floor 21, Colaba S.O., Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaace 2769 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 263Section 90

other sources" respectively as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue ignoring the fact that in terms of applicable provisions of Section 155(18), the AO is duty bound to pass rectification Order u/s. 154 disallowing the captioned claim as the appellant has filed Form 69 withdrawing such

Urmin Products Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 1007/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

however, because of the retrospective introduction of the Explanation (3) to the Act, the same becomes an inadmissible expenditure. However, the provisions of Section 155(18) which came to be introduced with effect from 01.04.2022 provided that where the assesse is desirous of withdrawing the claim ... have given our thoughtful consideration to the above factual position and perused all the material available on record. The provisions of Section 155(18) of the Act and Rule 132 read as under:- Section 155(18) of the Act: “[(18) Where any deduction in respect of any surcharge or cess

Urmin Products Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 1006/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

however, because of the retrospective introduction of the Explanation (3) to the Act, the same becomes an inadmissible expenditure. However, the provisions of Section 155(18) which came to be introduced with effect from 01.04.2022 provided that where the assesse is desirous of withdrawing the claim ... have given our thoughtful consideration to the above factual position and perused all the material available on record. The provisions of Section 155(18) of the Act and Rule 132 read as under:- Section 155(18) of the Act: “[(18) Where any deduction in respect of any surcharge or cess

First Abu Dhabi Bank Pjsc, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3279/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhfirst Abu Dhabi Bank Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Pjsc, Unit No.1101 & Income-Tax (It), Circle 1201 Platina Building, C- 2(3)(1), Room No. 1614, 59, G Block, Bandra Kurla 16Th Floor, Air India Complex, Bandra East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400051 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaecn2845F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agarwal Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai-2, Dated 20.07.2023 For A.Y. 2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: 1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Ao Has, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred In Initiating & Completing Assessment Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Without Issuing A Valid Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Ie, The Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Dated 29 June 2021 For Initiating Assessment Was Issued By National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac) Instead Of Being Issued By The Learned Ao (I.E Jurisdictional Assessing Officer) 2. Ground No. 2:

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 80G

fact that the Appellant has suo-moto withdrawn such claim during the course of assessment proceedings and has complied with the provisions of section 155(18) of the Act by filing Form 69 within the prescribed timeline P a g e | 3 First Abu Dhabi Bank Vs. DCIT(IT) Circle