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. 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.

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not struck off irrelevant limb in penalty notice-Original penalty proceedings are vitiated-Direction to enhance penalty will not survive. [S. 250, 251, 274]

Neelesh Satish Kanade v. ACIT (2022) 214 DTR 345 / 218 TTJ 641 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Addition on account of deeming provision-Neither concealment of income not furnishing inaccurate particulars of income-Penalty not sustainable. [S.50C]

Virendra Singh Verma v. ITO (2022)95 ITR 83 (SN)(Jaipur) (Trib)

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)