Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Jayesh V. Sheth, (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org .

S. 268A : Appeal – Instructions -Circulars – Monetary limits – Revision –Penalty – Concealment penalty – Monitory limit is also applicable to proceedings under section 263 of the Act – The CIT u/s.263 of the Income- tax Act directed the AO to initiate a penalty for concealment, which was not originally initiated in the assessment order- Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner – On appeal as the tax effect involved is below threshold limit of 2 crores-The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed .[ S.260A ,263 , 271(1)( c) ]

PCIT v. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd. ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline.org.

S. 68 : Cash credits – Failure to furnish source , identity of parties and genuineness of transaction -Shell companies – A racket of illegal business of providing accommodation entries -Accommodation entry provider -Credit appearing in the bank account -Books of account -, Data appearing in 2 CDs are extracted by the investigating wing from books of account- Statement on oath- Order of the Tribunal is reversed – Order of CIT(A) is affirmed – The Court also directed the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India to take disciplinary action , initiate proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 , launch prosecution under Income -tax Act ,and also directed the CCIT to conduct an enquiry and fix the responsibility against the officer responsible for the for not giving effect to the order of CIT( A) . Court also directed the Registry of the High Court is to forward copy of the order to Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, National Financial Reporting Authority, The Commissioner of Police-Economic Offence Wing, Mumbai, Enforcement Director under PMLA Act, The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai Ministry of Corporate Affairs. [ S. 2(12A), 44AB,69, 131, 132(4) , 279, Chartered Accountant’s Act, 1949. Indian Penal Code/BNS, 2023. ]

ITO v. Aura Spinwell Ltd. (2024)114 ITR 29 (SN)(Mum)(Trib)

S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Arm’s Length Price-Domestic transactions-Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer-Clause (I) Of Section 92BA(i)) is omitted By Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 1-4-2017-Penalty is deleted. [S.92BA, 92CA]

Yamuna Power and Infrastructure Ltd. v.Dy. CIT (2024)114 ITR 86 (SN)(Chd)(Trib)

S. 271AA : Penalty-Failure to keep and maintain books of accounts-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Non-Reporting of specified domestic transactions in Form 3CEB-Initiation of penalty and imposition of penalty falling under different grounds-Reasonable cause-Penalty is not sustainable.[S.92CA(3), 92D, 92E, 273B]

Shiv Agrevo Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024)114 ITR 90 (SN)(Jaipur)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice not specifying the charge-Estimation of gross profit-Penalty is deleted.[S, 274]

Ramchnd Bhulchand Rajai v. Dy.CIT(2024) 114 ITR 5 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Cash excess of prescribed limit-Loading and unloading-Ad-hoc disallowance-Levy of penalty is not justified.[S. 40A(3), 44AB,R. 6DD]

Ajoy Sharma v.Dy. CIT (2024)114 ITR 702/232 TTJ 81 (UO) (Trib)(Jaipur)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Reassessment-No difference between returned income and assessed income-Penalty is not leviable. [S. 139(4), 148]

ITO v. Sunil Bhagwandas Vorani (HUF) (2024)114 ITR 146 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Reassessment-Bogus purchases-Notice issued to parties returned as unserved by postal authorities-Addition on estimate basis-Deletion of penalty is affirmed. [S. 133(6), 147]

A.CIT v Mahashian Di Hatti P. Ltd. (2024)114 ITR 44 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-
Closing stock-Difference in value-Inadvertent mistake cannot be considered as misreporting of income. [S. 44AB, 270A(8)]

Jagadhri Co-Operative Marketing Cum Processing Society Ltd. v Pr. CIT (2024)114 ITR 631 / 227 TTJ 676 /239 DTR 99(Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Co-Operative Society-Interest on deposits with Co-Operative Bank-Entitled to deduction-Order of Assessing Officer is not erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue-Revision order is set aside.[S.80P(2)(d), 143(3)]