Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


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]

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)