Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sumit Chatterjee v. ITO (2023) 103 ITR 48 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c):Penalty-Concealment -Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income-Claimed exemption on bogus long-term capital gain in original return-Taxed as income from other sources in return filed in response to Sec. 148-Penalty cannot be levied as no addition to income of the assessee-Explained source, mode and manner of earning of income.[S. 10(38), 45 ,148]

Unitech Realty P. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2023)105 ITR 77 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-AO should have asked assessee to show cause in assessment proceedings, no enquiry or evidence that there was concealment of income-Further factual analysis of claim of loss not made, notice not specifying under which limb of section notice issued, Penalty not sustainable.

Pushpa Jadhav v. ITO (Mum)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Reassessment-The return filed in response to section 148 of the Act is accepted-No penalty can be levied. Observation of the AO must be specific and penalty cannot be levied for non-filing of original return u/s 139(1) [S. 139(1),148]

Trip Advisor Travel India Pvt. Ltd. v. A CIT (2023)101 ITR 28 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment—If directions of Tribunal given effect by Assessing Officer basis Transfer Pricing Adjustments would not survive-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 92C, 92CA (3), 271C]

LRS Management v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2023) 200 ITD 19(Rajkot)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Quantum addition stood deleted by Tribunal there remained no basis for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c)

Thomas Muthoot v. ACIT (2023)104 ITR 557 / 225 TTJ 33 (UO) (Cochin) (Trib)

271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-AO did not struck off irrelevant portion-Show cause notice not specifying limb of Section 271(1)(c) is defective-Penalty proceeding is quashed.[S. 274]

Sawailal Bhatti v. ITO (2023) 104 ITR 92 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Bogus purchases-Information from Sales Tax Department regarding bogus purchases made by assessee-Ad-hoc addition-Estimate basis-Penalty is deleted.[S.69C]

ACIT (IT) v. Godaddy.com LLC USA (2023) 201 ITD 525 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Domain name-Appeal pending before High Court-Debatable-Penalty is set aside-DTAA-India-USA [S. 9(1)(vi),r.w.s. 115A, Art. 12] penalty set aside.

Babita Devi Kajoria v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 17 (SN)(Kol) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Additions during reassessment-Reasons recorded for reopening assessment and additions made on different grounds. A.O. failed to prove that assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income-Additions deleted-Penalty deleted.

Atul Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)101 ITR 11 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Capital gains-Denial of special deduction claimed against income from long term capital gain-No business income shown-High court decision in favour-Tribunal Denying Deductions On Basis Of Later Supreme Court Ruling-Deduction admissible-Not a case of furnishing inaccurate particular-Penalty not leviable. [S.45 8oG 80HHC 112(2)]