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-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.
Unitech Realty P. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2023)105 ITR 77 (SN)(Delhi)(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]
Pushpa Jadhav v. ITO (Mum)(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]
Trip Advisor Travel India Pvt. Ltd. v. A CIT (2023)101 ITR 28 (SN)(Delhi) (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)
LRS Management v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2023) 200 ITD 19(Rajkot)(Trib)
271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-AO did not struck off irrelevant portion-Show cause notice not specifying limb of Section 271(1)(c) is defective-Penalty proceeding is quashed.[S. 274]
Thomas Muthoot v. ACIT (2023)104 ITR 557 / 225 TTJ 33 (UO) (Cochin) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Bogus purchases-Information from Sales Tax Department regarding bogus purchases made by assessee-Ad-hoc addition-Estimate basis-Penalty is deleted.[S.69C]
Sawailal Bhatti v. ITO (2023) 104 ITR 92 (Mum) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Domain name-Appeal pending before High Court-Debatable-Penalty is set aside-DTAA-India-USA [S. 9(1)(vi),r.w.s. 115A, Art. 12] penalty set aside.
ACIT (IT) v. Godaddy.com LLC USA (2023) 201 ITD 525/(2024) 110 ITR 724 (Delhi) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Additions during reassessment-Reasons recorded for reopening assessment and additions made on different grounds. A.O. failed to prove that assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income-Additions deleted-Penalty deleted.
Babita Devi Kajoria v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 17 (SN)(Kol) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Capital gains-Denial of special deduction claimed against income from long term capital gain-No business income shown-High court decision in favour-Tribunal Denying Deductions On Basis Of Later Supreme Court Ruling-Deduction admissible-Not a case of furnishing inaccurate particular-Penalty not leviable. [S.45 8oG 80HHC 112(2)]
Atul Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)101 ITR 11 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)
S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Long term capital gains-Received cash on sale of immovable property in AY 2016-17-Deposited cash during demonetisation period-Levied penalty for contravention of S. 269SS-Deleted penalty as S. 269SS was violated in AY 2016-17 and not in AY. 2017-18.[S. 45, 269SS]
Ramachandran Bandhuvula v. ITO (2023) 103 ITR 81 (SN)(Hyd) (Trib)