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. 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]

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

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-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]

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

Pushpa Jadhav v. ITO (Mum)(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]

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

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

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

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

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

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