“furnishing inaccurate particulars”

Unicorn Infoservices Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeals Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the regular ground raised by the

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2011-12

appellant it transpires that the appellant had suppressed its income appellant had suppressed its income appellant it transpires that the by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income during the assessment yea assessment year under reference. Therefore, the penalty order ... income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the penalty for its income. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income. furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income. Therefore, there is Therefore, there is a diversion in the charges under which the penalty

Guru Aashish Texfab Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13

total income of the assessee. Simultaneously, the AO also initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee challenged the said addition before the Ld. CIT(A), however, could not succeed as the then Ld. CIT (A) vide order

Gangoli Ramesh Shenoy, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-8, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16

categorically held that a mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made with the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars of income. Recently Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court ... claimed deductions in the return of income and the Hon’ble High Court held that it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of inaccurate particulars of income. Even otherwise we do not find any reason and/or material to sustain the levy

Lords Inn Hotels and Developers Private Limited, Andheri West vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3(1), Nariman Point

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Assessing Officer ‘may’ direct the levy of penalty if the Assessing Officer ‘is satisfied’ that an assessee has concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, whereas Section 270A of the Act does not mandate drawing of such satisfaction by the Assessing Officer. Section 270A(1) of the Act provides ... penalty could be levied (a) for the charge of concealment of particulars of income; or (b) for the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Whereas, in terms of Section 270A of the Act penalty can be levied only for the charge of under-reporting. The quantum of penalty

Allied Photographics India Limited, Churchgate vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

that the Assessing Officer ‘may’ direct the levy of penalty if the Assessing Officer ‘is satisfied’ that an assessee has concealed particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of income, whereas Section 270A of the Act does not mandate drawing of such satisfaction by the Assessing Officer and therefore, the directions issued ... penalty could be levied (a) for the charge of concealment of particulars of income; or (b) for the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Whereas, in terms of Section 270A of the Act penalty can be levied only for the charge of under-reporting. The quantum of penalty

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Michael Page International Recruitment P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal and CO filed by the Revenue and Assessee respectively, stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Michael Page Income Tax -14(1)(1), International Room No.432, 4Th Floor, Recruitment Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, 2 North Avenue Maker Mumbai - 400020 Maxity, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aagcm8425N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery (392 ITR 4) and many other decisions, submitted that the penalty was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but the penalty is levied invoking explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), therefore requested to squash the penalty. The appellant ... adhered to the satisfaction recorded for initiating the penal proceedings while imposing the penalty. Thus I find the penalty was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but while imposing the penalty, the AO has applied both the limb, which is incorrect approach. Further the appellant by relying

JCIT (It) (OSD)-4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arun Rangachari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and

income of the assessee as unexplained investment. (Penalty proceedings u/s 271(I1)(c) of the 1 T Act, 1961 has been initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 13. Before the ld. CIT (A), assessee raised legal issue on account of validity of reopening u/s.147 which has been dismissed ... Thurles International Ltd on protective basis. (Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the 1 T Act, 1961 tins been initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.) 13. It is notable that reassessment proceedings u's 147 of the Income tax Act in the case of Sh. Arun Rangachari