CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal

9 SCC 589Supreme Court of India2009#461 most cited

What is CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal authority for?

The Supreme Court clarifies the scope of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that for its applicability, conditions stated in the provision must strictly exist, and making an incorrect claim in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

200

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal · Section 271(1)(c) penalty · furnishing inaccurate particulars · concealment of income · incorrect claim in law · conditions for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) · Section 274 · levy of penalty · AO satisfaction penalty

Also reported as

317 ITR 1183 Taxmann 4441 GSTR 66

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 115JBSection 274Section 14ASection 276CSection 37(1)Section 10AASection 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 276csection 276furnishing inaccurate particularspenalty under section 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomesection 274concealment of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)fees for technical servicessection 271(1)levy of penaltysection 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2175/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…e penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

ITA 2174/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…nalty unless the case is strictly\ncovered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By\nany stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot\ntantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan\nBindal [2009] 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same\nprovision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be\nsatisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of his income. This Court referred to\nanother decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra\nTextile Processors [2008] 13…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2173/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…e penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2172/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…e penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

ITA 2171/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…nalty unless the case is strictly\ncovered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By\nany stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot\ntantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan\nBindal [2009] 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same\nprovision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be\nsatisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to\nanother decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra\nTextile Processors [2008] 13…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2170/PUN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…e penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC…

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SHIROL vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2169/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

…e penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC…

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1839/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

…e penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC…

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1838/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

…e penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC…

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1837/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

…e penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC…

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 1454/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…enalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision\ncannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in\nlaw cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan\nBindal [2009] 9 SCC 589, where this court was considering the same provision,\nthe court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person\nhas concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of\nsuch income. This court referred to another decision of this court in Union of\nIndia v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13…

DCIT(IT)-3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MUREX SOUTHEAST ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED, SINGAPORE

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1453/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…npenalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision\ncannot be invoked By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in\nlaw cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, In CIT V Atul\nMohan Bindal (2009) 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same\nprovision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a\nperson has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate\nparticulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of this Court\nin Union of India v Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 S…

RAJASTHAN RAJYA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1488/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Giya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80P

…tion of penalty for furnishing inaccurate 7 Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., Jaipur. particulars. The court stressed on the difference between “making an incorrect claim” and furnishing inaccurate particulars.” CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 317 ITR 1 (SC) The Supreme Court held that where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return were incorrect or erroneous or false, there is no question of imposing penalty. CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan(1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) The Supreme Court held that where the question of law was debatable, penalty cannot be imposed. In th…

ANATEK SERVICES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 368/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2002-03
Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ord his satisfaction\nin a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(l)(c) has also\nbeen elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile\nProcessors [2008] 13 SCC 369 and CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589.\n11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the\nRevenue and we find no illegality in the department initiating penalty proceedings in the\ninstant case. We, therefore, fully agree with the view of the High Court. Hence, the appeal\nlacks merit and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.\"\n23…

ANATEK SERVICES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 367/MUM/2025[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2001-02
Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ord his satisfaction\nin a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(l)(c) has also\nbeen elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile\nProcessors [2008] 13 SCC 369 and CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589.\n11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the\nRevenue and we find no illegality in the department initiating penalty proceedings in the\ninstant case. We, therefore, fully agree with the view of the High Court. Hence, the appeal\nlacks merit and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.\"\n23…

ANATEK SERVICES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 366/MUM/2025[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)
Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of Section 271(l)(c) has also been elaborately discussed by this Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008] 13 SCC 369 and CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589. 11. The principle laid down by this Court, in our view, has been correctly followed by the Revenue and we find no illegality in the department initiating penalty proceedings in the instant case. We, therefore, fully agree with the view of the High Court. Hence, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 23. We w…

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

…. There can be no dispute\nthat everything would depend upon the return filed because that is\nthe only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars\nof his income.—CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal (2009) 225 CTR (SC)\n248 : (2009) 28 DTR (SC) 1 : (2009) 9 SCC 589 followed\nReading the words \"inaccurate\" and \"particulars\" in conjunction,\nthey must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not\naccurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous.\nIn this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the\nassessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or\…

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5677/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…e penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished 7 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of…

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3753/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…e penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished 7 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of…

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3752/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

…e penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. In CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal [2009] 9 SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished 7 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited inaccurate particulars of such income. This Court referred to another decision of…

Showing 1–20 of 200 · Page 1 of 10

...