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-Notice issued without specifying limb-Levy of penalty not valid [S. 274]

Vibracoustic India Pvt. Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2022) 95 ITR 31 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Inadvertently claiming deduction of Corporate Social Responsibility-Suo motu filing revised computation during assessment proceedings.

Sterling Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (A) (2022)95 ITR (SN) 25 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Bogus purchases-Income estimated of 30% of purchases-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid.

Grand Prix Engg. Pvt Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2022) 95 ITR 505(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Penalty Levied by Assessing Officer on two counts of disallowance-Tribunal deleting disallowance on one count and remanding matter on other to Assessing Officer-Deletion of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals) is justified.[S. 10AA]

ACIT v. SJR Commodities and Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2022)96 ITR 64 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Assessing Officer in body of assessment order initiating proceedings for penalty for default of concealment of income-Imposition of penalty qua solitary addition for both defaults-Levy of penalty is not valid.

Vikash Nashine v Dy. CIT (2022)96 ITR 68 (SN) (Raipur) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Estimate of income at 20 % of receipts-Levy of penalty is not valid [S. 44BBB]

Lahmeyer Holding Gambh v. Dy. CIT (2022)96 ITR 455 (Trib) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice not specifying the charge for which penalty was being levied-Levy of penalty is not justified.

Dy. CIT v. Scooters India Ltd. (2022) 96 ITR 460 (Lucknow) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Inaccurate particulars of income-Deemed dividend taxed in the hands of assessee-Question in whose hands dividend to be taxed-cannot be subject matter of penalty for irregular particulars of income-Penalty levied incorrect. [2(22)(e)]

ITO v. Chetan Seth (2022) 97 ITR 597 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Penalty notice not specific whether it is a Concealment of income of furnishing of incorrect particulars of income-No intention of making inaccurate gains by assessee-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified.[S. 274]

Dy. CIT v. Future E-Commerce Infrastructure Ltd. (2022)97 ITR 508 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Addition deleted-Income deleted by Tribunal could not be held as considered for imposition of penalty.[S.274]

Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educational Research v.ITO (2022)97 ITR 31 (SN)(Pune) (Trib)