Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Dy. CIT v. Rajgaria Timbers P. Ltd. (2019) 74 ITR 36 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st day of July 2012-Entries in the books of account–No penalty can be levied. [S. 2(12A)]

Vijay Kumar Sood. v. DCIT (2019) 178 ITD 251 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007–Common appeal filed–Wrong advice–Delay was condoned–Matter remanded. [S. 246A, 271(1)(c)].

Dy. CIT v. Kulwant Singh (2019) 180 DTR 177 / 199 TTJ 545 / 104 taxmann. com 340 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Explanation given by the assessee is not proved to be false-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 69A, 271AAA]

Dehradun Club Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2019) 69 ITR 30 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Interest on fixed deposit receipts– Messing commission-Shown as exempt income–Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 148]

Dy. CIT v. Shehla Ahmad (Smt.) (2019) 74 ITR 523 (Luck.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Surrender of income voluntarily– Penalty cannot be levied.

PCIT v. Goa Coastal Resorts & Recreation Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.)(HC), www. itatonline.org

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Recording of satisfaction-In applicable portions are not struck off-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid.

Charu Modi Bhartia v. DCIT (2019) 177 DTR 1/ 104 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty-Failure to comply with notices-Alleged bank account not belong to assessee–No failure on part of assessee-No penalty can be levied. [S. 142(1)]

Commitment Mortality Vision Education Society v. ACIT (2019) 74 ITR 62(SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty-Failure to comply with notices–Penalty is upheld based on assessee’s conduct and failure to comply with statutory notices but deleted the penalty for five years in the interest of justice. [S.132, 142(1)]

Conton Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 55 CCH 600 / 72 ITR 85 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Share capital – share premium-AO conducted detailed inquiry–Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 68, 133(6)]

Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 310 CTR 350 / 181 DTR 183 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Orders shall be passed without being influenced by any of the observation made or finding rendered by the Single Judge.