Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 146 (0.90 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Cit, (It & Tp), Kolkata, Kolkata on 1 August, 2018

The Dcit-1(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs M/S Fern Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai on 8 February, 2023

The facts leading to this addition as discussed above and consequent imposition of penalty are quite similar to the case of the Price Waterhouse Cooper vs. CIT (Supra) and therefore, as was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, imposition of penalty is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The appellant has not intended to either conceal its income or furnish inaccurate particulars in respect of these additions.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs Israni Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai on 16 November, 2018

7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has disclosed primary facts in 7 ITA No.386/Mum/2017 respect of donation paid and STT paid in its return of income filed for the relevant assessment year. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee failed to add back donation paid amounting to Rs.50 lakhs and STT paid amounting to Rs.19,891 in the statement of total income. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has filed revised statement of total income rectifying the said mistakes before completion of assessment proceedings. The reason given by the assessee for not disallowing those two items in the statement of total income is that there is an inadvertent error while filing return of income, which resulted in omission of those two items in the statement of total income. The said mistakes is only a human error which cannot be considered as deliberate attempt made to evade payment of taxes. When we examine the claim of the assessee in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd vs CIT, Kolkatta (supra), we find that the facts of the assessee's case are identical to the facts of the case decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court while deleting penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c). In the said case, although the tax auditor quantified the disallowance of certain amount, the assessee failed to add back in the statement of total income. Under those facts, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that this cannot be considered as wilful attempt made to evade payment of taxes and at best, it could be termed as a human error which we are all prone to make. In this case, on perusal of facts, 8 ITA No.386/Mum/2017 we find that although the assessee has disclosed all facts in respect of those two items of expenses, but failed to add back in the statement of total income, while filing return of income. The said mistake has been rectified immediately after noticing during the course of assessment proceedings by filing revised statement of total income. Under these facts and circumstances, the AO was incorrect in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of donation paid & STT which warrants levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Ld.CIT(A), after considering relevant facts has rightly deleted penalty levied by the AO. We do not find any error in the findings of the Ld.CIT(A); hence, we are inclined to uphold the finding of Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dcit 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs Bansi Mall Management Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai on 22 November, 2018

In our considered view the ratio of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Private Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306(SC) is applicable on the factual and circumstantial matrix surrounding this particular case and in our considered view the assessee has furnished bonafide and genuine explanations as to an inadvertent mistake committed by it which was an human error committed while filing its return of income and there cannot be any ulterior motive attached to this error committed by the assessee, which has taken it out from the clutches of penalty under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act as it is well settled proposition of law that every error committed in filing of return of income cannot be visited with penal provisions as are contained in Section 271(1)(c).The operative part of decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coppers Private Limited (supra) is reproduced hereunder:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd,Pune vs Dy.Comm..Of Incometax, Circle 8, Pune on 5 December, 2024

8.2. It is also an admitted fact that the income tax refund along with interest on such refunds were adjusted against the outstanding demand for earlier years and no amount was received by the assessee in it's bank account. We, therefore, find merit in the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that it is an inadvertent and bonafide error in not disclosing the interest on income tax refund. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT (supra) observed that a bonafide and an inadvertent error does not attract penalty u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A), in the instant case, is not justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/sec.270A of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaipur Telecom Private Limited, Jaipur vs Dcit Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur on 22 April, 2024

It was also submitted by the ld. AR that there is no allegation about suppression of some facts or misrepresentation of some facts by the assessee and moreover this claim was also based on certain judicial pronouncements in favour of assessee at the time of making the claim. Thus, the claim of depreciation and interest on TDS was made 24 ITA No. 788 & 789/JPR/2023 Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT accordingly. It is also submitted that it is not the case that the claimed any bogus or excessive or unrelated expenses or has misrepresented the facts. On this issue our attention was invited to the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), which are though decided in respect of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), but the ratio related to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is pari materia with provisions of section 270A dealing with misreporting of income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs Ateeq Ahmed, New Delhi on 29 April, 2024

9.1 Learned CIT(A) gave due consideration to the submissions and accepted the argument of the AR that it was inadvertent mistake and the appellant has proved bona-fide by conduct (as soon as it came to the notice, it was accepted and taxes were paid the within the time prescribed by the demand notice), cannot be brushed aside and held that this case is covered by the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Vs. CIT. 348 ITR 306 (SC) i.e. no penalty can be levied on bona-fide mistakes.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G S Pannu - Full Document

Bakers Circle India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Assessee

9.1 In coming to the aforesaid decisions, we draw support from the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T. and Anr. 348 ITR 306 (SC). In this case it was held, allowing the appeal, that the facts of the case were peculiar and somewhat unique. Notwithstanding that the assessee was a reputed firm and had great expertise available with it, it was possible that even the assessee could make "silly" mistake. The fact that the tax audit report was filed along with the return and that it unequivocally stated that the provision for payment was not allowable under section 40A(7) of the Act indicated that the assessee made a computation error in its return of income. The contents of the tax audit report suggested that there was no question of the assessee concealing its income or of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. Apart from the fact that the assessee did not notice the error, it was not even noticed even by the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment order. All that had happened was that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for 5 ITA NO. 5112/Del/2012 gratuity to its total income. The assessee should have been careful but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, did not mean that the assessee was guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. On the peculiar facts of this case, the imposition of penalty on the assessee was not justified."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs Dcit Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur on 22 April, 2024

It was also submitted by the ld. AR that there is no allegation about suppression of some facts or misrepresentation of some facts by the assessee and moreover this claim was also based on certain judicial pronouncements in favour of assessee at the time of making the claim. Thus, the claim of depreciation and interest on TDS was made 24 ITA No. 788 & 789/JPR/2023 Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT accordingly. It is also submitted that it is not the case that the claimed any bogus or excessive or unrelated expenses or has misrepresented the facts. On this issue our attention was invited to the decision of the apex court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), which are though decided in respect of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), but the ratio related to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is pari materia with provisions of section 270A dealing with misreporting of income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next