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-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)

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)