Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Pushpa Jadhav v. ITO (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Once 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]

ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd. v. ITO (2023) 152 taxmann.com 90 / 103 ITR 152 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income-quantum and penalty proceedings are independent proceedings-no specific finding how disallowance constituted furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by assessee-Penalty not leviable merely based on confirmation of addition in quantum proceedings. [S. 14A]

Ramandeep Singh Sidhu v. ITO (2023) 153 taxmann.com 612/ 103 ITR 1 (Amritsar)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment -Cash deposits in account-partly explained as agricultural income-claim rejected by Commissioner Appeals-Held, penalty deleted as there was sufficient evidence on record to believe the assessee’s explanation. [S. 69]

K. World Developers P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023)103 ITR 552 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-Assessing Officer issuing notice without specifying particular limb under which penalty proceedings initiated-Non-application of mind by Assessing Officer-Penalty cannot be levied.[S. 274]

Pooja Upadhyay v. ITO (2023)105 ITR 549 (Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income-Assessee voluntarily depositing tax with computation of income before issue of notice.[S.133(6)]

Suresh Henry Thomas v. ITO (2023) 103 ITR 79 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)

S.271(1)(c): Penalty —Concealment-Non application of mind by the AO-Not specified penalty levied under which limb-Concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof-Penalty not sustainable.

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]