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-Transfer pricing-Conducted detailed functions, assets and risk analysis of international transactions-Documentations not rejected-Penalty not warranted. [S. 92C, 92D R.10D]
Dy. CIT v. Sitel India Ltd. (2022)97 ITR 65 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Additional evidence-Capital asset-Failure to declare capital gain-Land outside 8 Km-Penalty order set aside-Mater remanded. [S.2(14)(iii)), 275 (1) (C).]
Kishor Madhav Paranjape v Dy. CIT (2022) 97 ITR 45 (SN.) (Pune)(Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Interest-Donation-of small sums-Penalty not leviable merely because receipts could not be located. [S. 37(1), 80G]
Gulshan Chemicals Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)97 ITR 59 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Neither Assessment order nor penalty notice specifying whether proceedings initiated for concealment of income or filing inaccurate particulars of income-Penalty is not valid [S. 274]
Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)100 ITR 3 (SN) (Pune) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Difference between interest declared in books and Form 26AS-levy of penalty is not justified [Form, 26AS]
Dy. CIT v. Jagson International Ltd. (2022)100 ITR 69 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not mentioning nature of concealment in notice-Notice invalid-Levy of penalty is not valid.[S. 274]
Krishan Kumar Sharma v. ITO (2022)100 ITR 78 (Amritsar) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Deduction of expenditure-Sale and lease back-Depreciation-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 32, 35E]
Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd v.ACIT (2022)99 ITR 42 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Book profit-Prior period expenses-Loss as per regular assessment-Deletion of penalty is valid. [S. 115JB]
Dy. CIT v. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd. (2022) 217 TTJ 875 / 215 DTR 17 (Jabalpur)(Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Survey-Surrender of income-Included in the return of income-Reported income and assessed income is same-Deletion of penalty is valid [S. 133A]
ACIT v. East West Developers (2022) 219 TTJ 53 (UO)/98 ITR 33 (SN) (Pune)(Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Bogus purchases-Survey-Additional income declared in the revised return-Penalty was deleted.
Kirloskar Chillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2022) 98 ITR 74 (SN)(Pune) (Trib)