“furnishing inaccurate particulars”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)2,073 judgments

The decision most relied on for furnishing inaccurate particulars is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on furnishing inaccurate particulars

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court

953

citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT

292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court

812

citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court

791

citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court

672

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court

565

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya

216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court

511

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

Judgments citing furnishing inaccurate particulars

Trend Micro India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 8751/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Trend Micro India Private Limited, Vs Acit, 10Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Circle-25(2), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacct2082Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate & Shri S.S. Tomar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Jurisdictional High Court alongwith other decisions of different Courts, concluded that the assessee has concealed the income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 1,49,29,635/- and imposed the penalty of Rs. 48,43,920/-, being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded ... deeming provisions of Explanation-7, as above. In view of this, it is held that appellant has concealed the income by furnishing inaccurate particulars to the extent of Rs.1,49,29,635/-. I, therefore, confirm the penalty of Rs. 48,43,920/- levied by AO and dismiss the grounds taken

Sachin Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 30(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4508/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Kumar, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250

added back towards her taxable income under section 68 of the act. Penalty proceeding u / s 271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income with a view to concealment of income.” 3. The assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner

Purvi Vasantrai Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4359/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him & Dismissing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54E

However, on 30/03/2018, the Assessing Officer passed the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act holding that the Appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of income while claiming deduction of INR 40,00,000/- under Section 54EC of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before ... apparent that in view of the aforesaid facts no penalty could have been levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of exemption claimed by the Appellant under Section 54EC of the Act. Accordingly, the order, dated 09/10/2023, passed

DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Htc India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1785/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kr. Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the penalty amounting to Rs.81,82,693/- levied by AO on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income?” 3. The TPO made addition on account of TP adjustment of Rs.2.26 Cr. 4. The assessee is engaged in the business of Marketing

Sunita Ashok Bhaiya, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-5, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 43/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

After taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the assessee has without any reasonable cause furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of deduction u/s.80IB(11A) and rendered herself liable for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income ... making of claim which is not sustainable in law, the claim made in the return of income cannot be held to be furnishing inaccurate particulars and/or concealment of particulars of income. We find that the assessee-company had fully furnished all relevant details of its income and expenditure

Sunita Ashok Bhaiya, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 42/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Sunita Ashok Bhaiya, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 41/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Sunita Ashok Bhaiya, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 40/NAG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms./Shri Shri Alfiya RozieFor Respondent: Shri Mrunmay Ramteke

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-10, Chennai vs. Sj Suryah, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 594/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, without mentioning in the notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, whether the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or concealed the particulars of his income. In order to buttress his arguments, he has cited the decision ... course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (a)…. (b)…. (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income or (d)…. he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty- …….” 2. As can be seen from

Shri.S.J.Suryah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 806/CHNY/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries-Vst Diesel Engines Private Limited, Mysuru

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

ITA 505/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ankith, CA

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

entitlement of set off of brought forward losses in consequent to order giving effect to MAP resolution by assessee suo-moto amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. The facts that lead to levy of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are stated ... income was assessed at Rs.10,12,55,130/ and accordingly the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was initiated on 17.12.2018 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Page 5 of 19 4.7 The assessee also filed for rectification u/s 154 on 20.12.2018 before the AO to consider the suo motto challan

ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Vinod Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 4870/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. Nos 4473, 4472 & 4470/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12)

Section 271(1)(c)

levied. We find that the disallowance of purchases on adhoc basis does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. The Assessing officer has not doubted the sales and made disallowance of bogus purchases. We also rely ... cannot be levied on such adhoc estimated income. The disallowance of purchases on ad-hoc basis does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Since we have dealt and decided this disputed issue in the assesse appeal

Vinod Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(2), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 4473/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. Nos 4473, 4472 & 4470/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12)

Section 271(1)(c)

Vinod Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ACIT-15(2), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 4472/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. Nos 4473, 4472 & 4470/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12)

Section 271(1)(c)

Vinod Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 4470/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. Nos 4473, 4472 & 4470/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12)

Section 271(1)(c)

Takenaka India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. JCIT (OSD) Circle-25(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 5581/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Takenaka India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Cit (A)-44, First Floor, Tower-C, Vatika First New Delhi. India Place, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002. Pan-Aadct6143P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashutosh Mohan Rastogi & Shri Dhruv Seth, Adv. Respondent By Shri Gaurav Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Cit(A)”)-44, New Delhi Dated 24.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Correctness Of The Order On Following Grounds:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

grossly erred in mechanically initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof.” 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed its return of income, declaring total loss

Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mukeshkumar Somatmalji Doshi, Mumbai

ITA 4459/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Mukeshkumar Somatmalji Income Tax Officer Doshi, Ward 19(2)(2) 63/A, 1St Khumbharwada Lane, Room No.503, Bhandari Street, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Near Goel Deval, Lalgaug, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abqpd5578B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

18th Mach, 2015. 04. The learned Assessing Officer also initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income. 05. Against this assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A), who restricted ... assessee passed the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 28th March, 2018, holding that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of ₹7,72,152/- and levied a minimum penalty of ₹2,38,595/-. 07. The assessee challenged the penalty order

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2308/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

transferred assets at Rs.20,98,08,221/- from the block of assets as discussed above. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are initiated separately” 4. The A.O. on the second disputed issue, with respect to claim of production of advertisement films expenses found that ... treated as capital in nature and added back to the assessee's income. Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The A.O on the third disputed issue in respect of inclusion of freight components in the valuation of closing stock.It was found that

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India ( Formelry Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

DCIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi vs. Asian Consolidated Inds.Ltd), Rewari

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3013/DEL/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 1997-98

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292

fact that the intent and purpose of the AO while initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3. That the Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the show cause notice issued by the AO and the penalty ... does not mention the specific charge of default committed by the assessee i.e. whether the assessee has concealed its particulars of income; or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. He submitted, therefore, the subsequent proceedings have become invalid. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the decision