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. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Limitation-Two specific periods of limitation-End of financial year in which assessment proceedings completed, or six months from end of month in action for imposition of penalty initiated, whichever is later-Penalty order is barred by limitation. [S. 269SS, 273B, 275 (1)(c)]
Sameer Noorullah Khan v. CIT (Appeals) (2022) 98 ITR 42 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)
S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-Purchase of immovable property-Reasonable cause-Not aware of the provision-Penalty was deleted.[S.194IA, 273B]
Manish Jaiswal v. ACIT (2022) 216 DTR 36 / 218 TTJ 737 (Varanasi)(Trib)
S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-Deduction and deposit of tax in subsequent year after receipt of invoices-No Tax evasion or loss of revenue-Penalty not leviable [S.40(a)(ia), 273B, 274]
ACIT v. Parsons Brinckershoff India Pvt. Ltd. (2022)95 ITR 71 (Delhi)(Trib)
S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-External development charges paid to the Haryana Urban Development Authority-Levy of penalty was deleted.
Signature Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2022) 99 ITR 211 (Delhi) (Trib)
S. 271B :Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Limitation-Notice issued two and half years after assessment order passed-Barred by limitation. [S. 44AB]
Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit v. ITO (2022) 99 ITR 156 /219 TTJ 17 (UO) (Raippur)(Trib)
S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-No finding in the assessment order-Levy of penalty after 30 months after completion of the assessment-Barred by limitation. [S. 44AB, 275(1)(c)]
Jila Sahakari Kendriya Benk Maryadit v. ITO (2022) 219 TTJ 17 (UO)/ 99 ITR 156 (Raipur)(Trib)
S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st day of July 2012-Undisclosed income-Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceeding without mentioning specific charge-Show cause notice issued in routine manner-Penalty levied is void ab initio. [S.274]
Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal v. Dy. CIT (2022)98 ITR 200 (Jaipur) (Trib)
S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Undisclosed income-Surrender of income-Addition not based on material discovered during search in any form-Penalty is not valid.[S. 132 (4), 153A]
Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022)95 ITR 18 (SN)/ 217 TTJ 127 / 212 DTR 256 (Kol) (Trib)
S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Disclosure not made in statement recorded during search but pursuant to search action and not voluntary-Penalty justified. [S. 132(4) 271AAB]
Mothers Pride Educational Personna P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)100 ITR 44 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disclosure of income surrendered during survey in the return-Mandate of Expln. 1 to S. 271(1)(c)-Income declared in survey cannot constitute bedrock for imposition of penalty-Penalty was deleted. [S. 133A]
Prakash Mithalal Oswal v. ITO (2022) 214 DTR 169 / 218 TTJ 398 (Pune)(Trib) Editorial: MAK Data (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC) distinguished.