← All Phrases

“Section 139(1)(5)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(1)(5)(c)1 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(1)(5)(c) is Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT (348 ITR 344), cited in 164 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(1)(5)(c)

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

CIT v. Chaphalkar Bro
88 Taxmann.com 178 · 2017 · Supreme Court
95
citing judgments

Subsidies granted under a Government Industrial Scheme to accelerate industrial development and generate employment are capital in nature, determined by the 'purpose test', regardless of the timing, source, or form of the subsidy.

Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
118 ITR 326 · 1979 · Supreme Court
65
citing judgments

There is no legal presumption that every person knows the law, and the maxim 'ignorantia juris non excusat' does not imply universal legal awareness. This principle is applied when evaluating whether a taxpayer's genuine belief or ignorance of law impacts their liability for penalties or constitutes reasonable cause.

A.M. Shah & Co. v. CIT
238 ITR 415 · 1999 · High Court
52
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not attracted if the assessee offers a bonafide explanation, even though the distinction between concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars can be thin or overlap.

Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
42 Taxmann.com 54 · 2014 · High Court
45
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars is justified where an assessee discloses additional income after a departmental survey operation has detected irregularities, such as bogus expenditure, compelling the disclosure.

422 ITR 71 (Bom) Pr. CIT v. JSW Steel Ltd.
280 CTR 216 · 2015 · High Court
31
citing judgments

A return of income filed in response to a notice under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act is to be considered as a return filed under Section 139 of the Act for all other provisions, including the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

CIT v. Dr. R.C. Gupta & Co.
122 ITR 567 · 1980 · High Court
27
citing judgments

An assessee cannot escape penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealed income merely because they agreed to additions after detection and filed a return in response to departmental enquiry, or made tax payments to buy peace.

Smt. Kiran Devi v. ACIT
125 TTJ 631 · 2009 · ITAT
23
citing judgments

Income disclosed in a return filed in response to a notice under section 153C, following a search, which was not disclosed in the original return, constitutes a clear case of concealment attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c). Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) need not be invoked in such circumstances.

Judgments citing Section 139(1)(5)(c)

M/S Sancheti Ornaments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-NFAC CIT Appeals Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1500/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1500/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Sancheti Ornaments बिधम/ Ito-Nfac/Cit (A) Pvt. Ltd. Delhi. Vs. Room No.7, 2Nd Floor, 65/67 Zaveri Bazaar, Mumbai-400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps0110E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms Ruby Shrivastava Revenue By: Shri Suresh Gaikwad (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 28.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,54,47,500/- Being Cash Deposited During The Demonetization Period.

For Appellant: Ms Ruby ShrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gaikwad (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM