“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

Bombardier Transportation Gmmh, New Delhi vs. Addldirecoootor of Inomce-Tax (International Taxation), Range-1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4547/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.5732/धिल्ली/2011(नि.व. 2008-09) Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, C/O M/S. Bombardier Transportation India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, B-Wing, Somdutt Chambers-I, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcb-4031-C बिाम Vs. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle 1(1), New Delhi आअसं.4547/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2009-10) Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, C/O M/S. Bombardier Transportation India P. Ltd., Asset No. 2, 3Rd Floor, Novotel- Pullman Commercial Tower, Aero City, Delhi International Airport, New Delhi 110037 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcb-4031-C बिाम Vs. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle 1(1), New Delhi आअसं.4511/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2009-10) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (International Taxation), R. No. 409, E-2 Block, 4Th Floor, Civic Centre, Near Minto Road, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant New Delhi बिाम Vs. Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, C/Co Asa & Associates, K S House 118, Shahpur Jat, New Delhi 110049 ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aadcb-4031-C

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra, Anmol Anand &For Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the act for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” Factual Matrix: 4. The assessee is a company incorporated in Germany and is a tax resident of Germany. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(2), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi vs. Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4511/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

For Appellant: S/Shri Deepak Chopra, Anmol Anand &For Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5732/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Raees Alam Siddiqui, Ghazipur vs. Dy. C.I.T., Range - 1, Varanasi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/VNS/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amandeep Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

basis of penalty made at assessment stage are on account of deliberate, malafide intention of the assessee to conceal the particulars or nor furnished inaccurate particulars. 5. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in upholding ... income made on estimate basis did not lead to the conclusion that the assessee had either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. To be concealment, there had to be a positive act and the onus to prove this rested on the Department. The Tribunal

Jyoti Shroff, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

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

ITA 2277/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty amounting to ₹7,24,315/- was imposed vide order dated 29.06.2017 on the disallowance of processing charges for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who, vide order dated 12.09.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee ... appellant's grounds of appeal are against the action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6.2 In the present proceedings before me, the appellant submitted that she had filed quantum appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

Asia Today Ltd, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 1403/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Asia Today Limited, Asst. Director Of Income C/O. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Tax (International Ltd., Vs. Taxation)-2(2), 135, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Scindia House, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Bellard Estate, Pan: Aabca0249F Mumbai - 400039 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2007, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2004-05. 2. The Relevant Facts For Adjudication Of This Appeal Are As Under: The Assessee, Being A Foreign Telecasting Company Incorporated In Mauritius & Having Tax Residency Certificate Of Mauritius , During The Ay Under Consideration Was Engaged In The Production & Acquiring Rights Of Various Television Films Including Feature Films, As A Copy Right Owner/Holder Of Various Hindi Feature Films Produced & Censored In India, As Mentioned In Schedule ‘C’ Annexed With The ‘Agreement Of 2 M/S Asia Today Ltd. Vs Asst. Dit (Int. Taxation)-2(2)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

taxed @ 15% under Article 12(2) of the India-Mauritius Treaty. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Since the assessee has also failed to get its books of accounts audited u/s. 44AB of the I.T. Act, penalty proceedings u/s. 271B is separately initiated

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5403/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 159Section 35A

added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.6 The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 20.12.2018 under the name as the legal

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5402/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 159Section 35A

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5401/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Shah

Section 147Section 148Section 35A

Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.6 The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of The Assessing Officer

Prasam Rakesh Choudhary, Girnar Society, Bapurao Galli, Itwari, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -1, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/IND/2025[2018 -2019]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 Dec 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

proceeding, vide show-cause notices dated 30.08.2019/11.02.2020, for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the footing that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming inadmissible depreciation. Ultimately, the AO passed penalty-order dated 28.02.2020 imposing a penalty ... same added to the total income of the assessee and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. The reply of the assessee has been considered and not found to be acceptable as the assessee has failed to submit any directions

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bhopoal, Bhopal vs. M/S Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 509/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

Shri Datta Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Cir-1, 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)

made on the basis of information provided by the assessee only. Therefore, the assessee neither concealed its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Apart from above, Ld. AR also submitted that since the issue of addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/- on account of penalty ... imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act since the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of his income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It was also contended that on the basis of an addition which is debatable the penalty

Shri Datta Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kolhapur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2174/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

made on the basis of information provided by the assessee only. Therefore, the assessee neither concealed its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Apart from above, Ld. AR also submitted that since the issue of addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/- on account of 6 ITA Nos.2169 ... imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act since the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of his income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It was also contended that on the basis of an addition which is debatable the penalty

Shri Datta Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Cir-1, 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)

Shri Datta Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Cir-1, 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)

Shri Datta Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kolhapur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2171/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)(a)

made on the basis of information provided by the assessee only. Therefore, the assessee neither concealed its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. Apart from above, Ld. AR also submitted that since the issue of addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/- on account of sale of sugar ... imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act since the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of his income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. It was also contended that on the basis of an addition which is debatable the penalty

Shri Datta Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Cir-1, 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)

Shri Datta Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Shirol vs. DCIT, Cir-1, 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)

Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 657/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2012-13) Visakhapatnam Industrial Water V. Dy. Cit – Circle – 5(1) Supply Company Limited Visakhapatnam Gvmc Room No.204 Tenneti Bhavan, Asilmetta Junction Visakhapatnam – 530002 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabcv2240H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

penalty is Page No. 4 I.T.A. No. 657/VIZ/2025 Visakhapatnam Industrial Water Supply Company Limited being proposed ie whether penalty is being levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income or for both. The appellant relied upon the Supreme Court Judgment in the case ... mentioned in the penalty order that, Both (The Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeal) has considered in their respective orders that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of Income. Assessee could not produce any logical reply on the issues therefore reply submitted by the assessee is rejected. Further, during the course

Shring Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 7056/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Hon’Blea.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

show cause as to why a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) may not be imposed for concealing the particulars of his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who vide his order dated confirmed the additions amounting ... abeyance. Hence, AO noted that it appears that assessee has nothing to say regarding the concealment of particulars of his income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of aforesaid additions made to its income. In view of above, it was held that assessee is liable for penalty