Month: April 2018

Archive for April, 2018


CIT v. N. Jayaprakash. (2018) 400 ITR 99 / 163 DTR 350/ ( 2019) 307 CTR 627 (Ker) (HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Unaccounted sales and un explained cash credits –Quantum addition was up held by High Court -Levy of penalty was held to be justified . [ Explanation 1 ]

PCIT v. Sewa Singh Sekhwan. (2018) 400 ITR 347 (P&H) (HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Capital gains- Cancellation of agreement – Amount receivable in respect of land was not transferred, hence penalty cannot be levied . [ S.2(47) (v), 45 ]

PCIT v. Dr. Vandana Gupta ( 2018) 163 DTR 361/ 301 CTR 460 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty –Concealment -Voluntary surrender of income after survey by filing a revised income does not save the assessee from levy of penalty for concealment of income in the original return if there is no explanation as to the nature of income or its source. Deletion of penalty was held to be not justified [ S. 133A ]

CIT v. Vasantha Anirudhan.( Smt.) (2018) 401 ITR 279 /163 DTR 279/ 302 CTR 257 (Ker) (HC)

S. 271(1)( c ): Penalty — concealment-Notice need not specifically mention Explanation- Addition as unexplained investment- Levy of penalty was held to be justified [ S.159(6) ]

Shanti Ramanand Sagar And Others v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 245/ 161 DTR 129/ 300 CTR 132 (Bom) HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment –Inaccurate particulars – Penalty is a civil liability – Concealment need not be wilful- Non disclosure of entire receipt from transaction was held to be liable to penalty .

CIT v. International Institute Of Neuro Sciences And Oncology Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 188 (P&H)( HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment –Assessment was determined as book profit under legal fiction , hence concealment penalty cannot be imposed [ S. 115JB ]

PCIT v. Shree Gopal Housing & Plantation Corporation( 2018) 167 DTR 236 / 303 CTR 428 (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty – Concealment -Admission of appeal by High Court -There can be no universal rule to the effect that no penalty can be levied if quantum appeal is admitted on a substantial question of law [ S.260A ]

PCIT v. Tehal Singh Khara and Sons ( 2018) 400 ITR 243 ( P&H ) (HC)

S. 269SS : Acceptance of loans and deposits – Otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft -Depositors were agriculturists and transactions were genuine – Penalty cannot be imposed [S.271D ]

CIT v. Vasantha Anirudhan.( Smt.) (2018) 401 ITR 279 /163 DTR 279 / 302 CTR 257(Ker) (HC)

S. 268A : Appeal– Monetary limits – Circular is not applicable where decision on principle is involved.[ S. 119 ]

CIT v. Shalimar Industries Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 239 (Cal) (HC)

S. 268A : Appeal– Monetary limits – Circulars are binding on department- Reference application was rejected [ S. 119 ]