Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal upholds deletion of penalty under Income Tax Act for unintentional errors.</h1> <h3>A.C.I.T, Circle-32 Kolkata Versus M/s. H.V Williams & Co.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, ruling that the errors made by the assessee ... Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - assessee had voluntarily admitted the mistake of inclusion of professional fees in exempted income from mutual fund - CIT(A) deleted penalty levy - Held that:- In the present case, the AO in the penalty order u/s. 271(1) ( c) of the Act dated 30-06- 2010 himself observed that the error reveals a casual and irresponsible attitude towards tax accounting. Similarly, the assessee debited a sum of ₹ 2,76,893/- as partners’ salary on the basis of original partnership deed. But the AO on examination of the same found that there was no such provision in the current deed. The assessee is not contested the said addition. Therefore, the additions made by the AO was justified. However, it is well settled that the assessment and the penalty proceedings are different and distinct proceedings and even when addition is made for certain reasons, it cannot be said that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the income. the mistake was committed by the accountant of the assessee. Even it was not noticed by the AO, and the assessee itself during the course of assessment proceedings while preparing the details from its ledger accounts came to know the said mistake had been committed by the accountant and proposed for addition. Therefore, through a bonafide and inadvertent error the assessee claimed the income as exempt and wrongly provided for partners‘ salary. But the submissions of the assessee was that the error occurred by a mistake of its accountant, who treated the said professional income as Income from Mutual Funds’ and the salary was claimed on the basis of the clause mentioned in the original partnership deed was not found to be false. We, therefore, keeping in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd (2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT ) are of the view that the ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty so levied by the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.2. Inclusion of professional income under the head 'Income from mutual funds.'3. Disallowance of partners' salary.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):The main issue revolves around whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars was justified. The department argued that the assessee did not voluntarily admit the mistake of including professional fees in exempted income from mutual funds, and no revised return was filed to enhance its income. The assessee contended that all material facts were fully disclosed, and the mistakes were bona fide without any intent to conceal income. The CIT(A) observed that the mistake was detected by the assessee itself during the assessment proceedings and not by the AO, indicating that it was a bona fide error. The CIT(A) relied on various case laws, including the Supreme Court's decision in Dharmendra Textiles Processors, which clarified that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability and not all cases of addition would automatically lead to penalty.2. Inclusion of Professional Income under the Head 'Income from Mutual Funds':The assessee had mistakenly included professional income of Rs. 34,66,017 under the head 'Income from mutual funds,' which was exempt from tax. The AO added this amount to the professional income after the assessee admitted the mistake during assessment proceedings. The assessee explained that the mistake occurred due to the accountant's error, who recorded both professional income and mutual fund income in a single ledger account. The CIT(A) accepted this explanation, noting that the error was detected and disclosed by the assessee itself, and there was no intent to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars.3. Disallowance of Partners' Salary:The AO disallowed partners' salary amounting to Rs. 2,76,893, stating that there was no provision in the current partnership deed for such payment. The assessee argued that the provision existed in the original partnership deed and that oral agreements were valid for the firm's conduct. The assessee did not contest the disallowance to avoid litigation but maintained that this did not equate to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) observed that the mistake was due to the accountant's error and was not intentional, thus not justifying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c).Conclusion:The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee's mistakes were bona fide and not intentional. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as the errors were attributable to the accountant's mistakes, and the assessee had disclosed these errors during assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) referred to various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., which held that inadvertent errors do not justify penalty imposition. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the department's appeal and confirming the deletion of the penalty.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found