This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

S. 271AAA : Penalty – Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007 –
Payment of tax with interest before assessment was made-Deletion of penalty was held to be justified [ S. 132(4)]

PCIT v. Swapna Enterprise (2018) 401 ITR 488/ 253 Taxman 531 /166 DTR 51 / 302 CTR 504(Guj) (HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -When show cause notice does not strike out the inappropriate words, levy of penalty was held to be not justified . [ S. 274 ]

Jeetmal Choraria v. ACIT ( 2018) 91 taxmann.com 311 (kol)(Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Satisfaction was not recorded in absolute term – levy of penalty was held to be not justified . [ S. 274 ]

Indrani Sunil Pillai v. ACIT ( Mum)(Trib) www.itatonline.org

S.271(1)( c ): Penalty — Concealment- Allocation of common expenses – Not a case of filing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income- Penalty cannot be imposed .

Pheonix Lamps Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 769 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Capital gains- Disclosed in the return filed pursuance of reassessment notice – Levy of penalty was held to be not justified [ S. 45, 148 ]

Pankaj Kumar Gupta v. ITO ( Lucknow)(Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty –Concealment – Wrong claim of depreciation by crediting capital subsidy to reserves instead of reducing from actual cost/ WDV does not attract the penalty

Prafful industries (P) Ltd. V. DCIT (Delhi)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Claim of deduction – Payable -Difference of opinion amongst High Court – Deletion of penalty was held to be justified . [ S. 40(a)(ia) ]

CIT v. Manzoor Ahmad Walvir. (2018) 400 ITR 89 (J & K) (HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Claim of deduction – Payable -Difference of opinion amongst High Court – Deletion of penalty was held to be justified . [ S. 40(a)(ia) ]

CIT v. Manzoor Ahmad Walvir. (2018) 400 ITR 89 (J & K) (HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Unaccounted sales and un explained cash credits –Quantum addition was up held by High Court -Levy of penalty was held to be justified . [ Explanation 1 ]

CIT v. N. Jayaprakash. (2018) 400 ITR 99 / 163 DTR 350/ ( 2019) 307 CTR 627 (Ker) (HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Capital gains- Cancellation of agreement – Amount receivable in respect of land was not transferred, hence penalty cannot be levied . [ S.2(47) (v), 45 ]

PCIT v. Sewa Singh Sekhwan. (2018) 400 ITR 347 (P&H) (HC)