Year: 2020

Archive for 2020


Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 77 ITR 555 / 187 DTR 159/ 204 TTJ 341 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-Concealment–Search and seizure–Undisclosed income-Disallowances cannot automatically lead to penalty–levy of 10% penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 132, 271(1)(c)]

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena v. ACIT (2020)77 ITR 44 (SN) (Cuttack) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Receipt of additional income not disclosed prior to search-Levy of penalty is justified–AO not sure on which count he intends to levy penalty-Two situations contradictory to each other-Returned and assessed income the Same and revised income accepted-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 132, 153A]

Lopa Pankaj Dave (Smt.) v. Dy.CIT (2020) 77 ITR 29 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.) Manubhai Bhailal Patel (Late) v. Dy. CIT (2020) 77 ITR 29 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.) Ramanbhai Bhailal Patel (Late) v. Dy. CIT (2020) 77 ITR 29 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.) Prabhaben M. Patel (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2020) 77 ITR 29 (SN) (Ahd.) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Long term capital gains-Search-Addition on account of difference between the rate adopted by assessee and department-levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 132, 139, 153A, 271(1)(c), Expl. 5A, 274].

Harshvardhan v. Dy. CIT (2020)77 ITR 81 (SN) / 195 DTR 145/ 206 TTJ 894(Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Vague allegation-Not specifying specific charge-0levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 274]

Dibyajyoti Chemicals P. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 77 ITR 40 (SN) (Cuttack) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Inapplicable words in notice not struck off-Penalty order not specifying exactly under which limb penalty is levied-Penalty is held to be unjustified. [S. 274]

Rajendra Shringi v. Dy. CIT (2020) 77 ITR 85 (SN) (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Survey–Surrender of income– No difference between returned income and assessed income– Penalty is not leviable–As regards non disclosure of rental income-Penalty is leviable. [S. 22, 133A]

Muthukumaran Rangarajan v. ITO (2020) 77 ITR 421/ 185 ITR 365 / 192 DTR 263/ 206 TTJ 746 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Sale of fixed asset-Slump sale-Amount not offered as income-Levy of penalty is justified-Not striking off relevant limb of notice–Reply filed in response to notice –Presumption is that the assessee has understood the notice. [S. 50B, 50C, 274]

Shyam Steel Manufacturing Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020)77 ITR 37 (SN) (Kok.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limitation-Doctrine of merger-Revision on issues not subject matter of reassessment but pertaining to original assessment-Limitation would run from date of order of original assessment and not from date of order of reassessment-Revision barred by limitation. [S. 143(3), 147, 263(2)]

Muzaffer Mahmood Khan v. PCIT (2020) 77 ITR 62 (SN) (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Sequence of events such as sale, purchase and other consequential transactions not discussed by AO-Revision is held to be valid. [S. 54F]

Delhi Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 77 ITR 22 (SN)/185 DTR 185 /203 TTJ 359 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Allowing depreciation at 100% and allowance of finance cost which is attributable to period prior to commencement of business-Revision is held to be valid. [S. 32, 37(1)]