Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.31 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 270AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Engineering Analysis Centre Of ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 March, 2021
18. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse
Coopers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) has held that where in tax audit report filed by
10
ITA No.2589/PUN/2024
the assessee, it was indicated that provision towards payment of gratuity was not
allowable but assessee failed to add said provision to total income, no penalty
could be imposed for such mistake. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court from para 17 onwards read as under:
The Coinage Act, 2011
Acit, New Delhi vs M/S. Mahashian Di Hatti Pvt. Ltd., New ... on 29 October, 2018
19. We find the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Mahashian
Di Hatti Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue upheld
11
ITA No.2589/PUN/2024
the order of the Ld. CIT(A) cancelling the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer
by observing as under:
M/S Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Cit, (It & Tp), Kolkata, Kolkata on 1 August, 2018
14. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price
Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC), she submitted that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that where in tax audit
report filed by the assessee, it was indicated that provision towards payment of
gratuity was not allowable but assessee failed to add said provision to total income,
no penalty could be imposed for such mistake. She accordingly submitted that in
view of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the facts are
identical to the facts of that of the assessee, penalty levied by the Assessing Officer
and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC being not in accordance with law, should
be deleted.
Chambal Fertilisers And Chemicals ... vs Dcit, Kota on 13 May, 2022
6.4 Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Chambal Fertilizers
and Chemicals Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (2024) (158 taxmann.com 184) (Rajasthan)
has held that where during scrutiny assessee realized aspect of merging
GST Input Credit with expenses and same was suo-moto surrendered by
assessee by revising its return, however revenue imposed penalty under
section 270A and thereafter, rejected application of assessee under section
270AA, since revenue wasn't sure whether it was a case of
misrepresentation or suppression of facts or claim of expense and
application under section 270AA was rejected in a wholly cursory manner
indicating that case of assessee was within ambit of clause (a) and (c) of
section 270A(9) and without giving any cogent reasons, same could not be
sustained.
Exfo Electro-Optical Engineering (I) ... vs Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle ... on 23 November, 2022
6.5 Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Alrameez Construction (P.)
Ltd. Vs NFAC (2023) (152 taxmann.com 382) (Mumbai Trib.) has held that
where Assessing Officer made addition under section 43CA read with
section 56(2)(x), case of assessee did not fall in category of under reporting
of income and moreover since in penalty notice under section 270A revenue
had failed to specify limb "under-reporting" or "misreporting" of income,
under which penalty proceedings had been initiated, entire proceeding was
not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any reason.