← All Phrases

“furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)1,616 judgments

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

Leading authorities on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

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 of income

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1785/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 30. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the services provided by the assessee is a banking service which

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1784/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 30. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the services provided by the assessee is a banking service which

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." 30. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the services provided by the assessee is a banking service which

Schott Glass India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

ITA 7356/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mahesh Jiwade
Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

specific offence committed by the assessee by stating as to whether the assessee has concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3.1. We find that this issue is no longer res-integra in view of the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High

Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Circle 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

ITA 2594/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mahesh Jiwade
Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

specific offence committed by the assessee by stating as to whether the assessee has concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3.1. We find that this issue is no longer res-integra in view of the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High

Meka Ranganayakamma, Krishna District vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 119/VIZ/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50GSection 54G

notice U/s. 271(1) is not valid because it has not been specified whether it was issued for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and the specific item have not been ticked. However, it is seen from the penalty order that the penalty has been initiated

Radhe Developers (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Radhe Developers (India) Ltd. Acit, Cir.3(1)(2) 1St Floor, Chunibhai Chamber Vs Ahmedabad. B/H. City Gold Cinema Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacr 9177 L

For Respondent: Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

Assessing Officer has to give a clear finding as to whether the case is that of concealment of income or that of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of such specific finding, the penalty order was bad in law. iii) In the facts and in the circumstances ... wherein at para-4, the AO clearly mentions that he has reasons to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income pertaining to the valuation of closing stock amounting to Rs.24,53,100/-. The same is reproduced hereunder: “4. As brought out in the assessment order, the assessee

India Flysafe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1583/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Meenakshi Dohare, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

notice does not make it clear if the assessee was called upon to explain for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. As we take into account the assessment order dated 26.02.2016, it comes up that in regard to disallowances made ... primarily recorded satisfaction that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and, accordingly, on that basis, only the impugned order was passed. 5. Thus, there is substance in the contention of the ld. AR that in the absence of striking off specific limb in the notice, the notice

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Matix Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 2154/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &

initiated 271(1)C) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. particulars of income.” 5.2 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that contract was On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that contract was On further appeal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Matix Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2153/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 37(1)Section 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Matix Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 2152/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &

initiated 271(1)C) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. particulars of income.” 5.2 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that contract was On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that contract was On further appeal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Matix Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2151/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &For Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 37(1)Section 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Matix Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2150/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 37(1)Section 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Matix Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 2149/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &

initiated 271(1)C) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. particulars of income.” 5.2 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that contract was On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that contract was On further appeal

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Matix Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2148/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 37(1)Section 56

CWIP is reduced accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)C) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5.2 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that contract was assigned to M/s EPIC with associated risk of installation and execution of the project and therefore ... used for the business purpose and CWIP is reduced accordingly. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Reduction of CWIP by Rs. 70,77,37,045/-)” 8.3 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance observing as under

Matix Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A)53, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1688/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &For Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 37(1)Section 56

CWIP is reduced accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)C) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5.2 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that contract was assigned to M/s EPIC with associated risk of installation and execution of the project and therefore ... used for the business purpose and CWIP is reduced accordingly. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Reduction of CWIP by Rs. 70,77,37,045/-)” 8.3 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance observing as under

Matix Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A)53, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1687/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &

initiated 271(1)C) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. particulars of income.” 5.2 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that contract was On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that contract was On further appeal

Matix Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A)53, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1686/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &

initiated 271(1)C) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. particulars of income.” 5.2 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that contract was On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that contract was On further appeal

Matix Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A)53, Mumbai

ITA 1685/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &For Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 37(1)Section 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Matix Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT(A)53, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 1684/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Ita Nos. 1688, 1687, 1686, 1685, 1683, 1684/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, &

initiated 271(1)C) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. particulars of income.” 5.2 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that contract was On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that contract was On further appeal