Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Dy. CIT v. Becon Constructions P. Ltd. (2023)104 ITR 74 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Search-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Bogus purchases-Penalty in search cases cannot be levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for AY. 2012-13 .[S. 271AAA]

Dy. CIT v. Havells India Ltd. (2023) 103 ITR 16 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty —Concealment-CIT (A) observed that assessee was subjected to pay taxes u/s 115JB,even after taking into consideration additions made in assessment order-held, with reference to cbdt circular no. 25 of 2015, dated 31.12.2015 penalty was not leviable-Order upheld. [S.115JB]

Add. CIT v. AON Services India P. Ltd. (2023) 150 taxmann.com 344/ 103 ITR 21 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Transfer pricing adjustment-Application of filters and selection of comparables are debatable issues-not ground for levy of penalty-suo-moto disallowance of provision for doubtful debts-tribunal directed the ao to withdraw disallowance after verification-as addition did not survive-cancellation of penalty justified-denial of deduction u/s 10a-proposed in draft assessment order but deleted by drp-deduction allowed in full in final assessment order-penalty does not survive.

Ashvin Narayan Bajoria (HUF) v ITO (2023) 103 ITR 25 (SN) (Surat) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c):Penalty-Concealment-Assessee declared additional income in his ROI filed in response to S. 148 notice-the same was accepted by the AO without any variation-Held, Penalty was not leviable. [S. 147, 148]

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.