Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Lucknow vs Shri Indu Prakash Mishra, Lucknow on 20 February, 2018 cites

M/S. Hamir Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs Ito (Tds), New Delhi on 18 September, 2017

Further, in the case of Shrikant Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3)(4), Mumbai [2013] 140 ITD 155, it was held by the ITAT Mumbai Bench that clerical mistakes/errors in e-return are condonable. When such return is filed, there is a possibility of entering incorrect data without having the expert knowledge. In view of these discussions, the ld. CIT(A) held that agricultural income credited in the capital account as Rs.10,16,480/- is the correct figure and the mistake in not filing the return of income of Rs.42,25,400/- was wrongly shown in the relevant column and it is not correct figure. The Assessing Officer, therefore, was directed to take the agricultural income of the assessee at Rs.10,16,480/-.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 29 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sujata Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Ito 8(3)(2), Mumbai on 28 April, 2017

7. The ld. CIT(A) in his order has observed that there are two facets involved in the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee shown agricultural income of Rs.10,16,480/- in the capital account as reflected in the balance sheet as on 31/3/2012. However, while filing of return of income for the year under consideration the agricultural income was wrongly shown as Rs.42,25,400/- in the relevant column. The assessee claims that the return of income had wrong figure and the correct figure as per balance sheet should be taken as the agricultural income for the year under consideration. The ld. CIT(A) referred to the Board Circular No.14 (XL-35) dated 11/4/1955 which clearly outlines the need to collect only legitimate tax from the assessee. It emphasis that the Assessing Officer should not take advantage of an assessee's ignorance to collect more tax out of him than legitimately due from the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) further made ITA No.170/LKW/2016 Page 5 of 8 reference to the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Sujata Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, 8(3)(2), Mumbai [2015] 152 ITD 492 wherein it was held that where assessee-company at the time of filing of the return of income electronically had inadvertently filled column regarding details of audit under section 44AB wrongly, penalty under section 271B of the Act would not be leviable.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1