Which cases are most cited on penalty under section 271(1)(c)?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) — 2,590 citing judgments; CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158) — 2,228 citing judgments; CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (73 Taxmann.com 248) — 953 citing judgments; Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11) — 812 citing judgments; CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (73 Taxmann.com 241) — 791 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss penalty under section 271(1)(c)?

BharatTax indexes 1,699 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss penalty under section 271(1)(c) (Section 271(1)(c)).

← All Phrases

“penalty under section 271(1)(c)”

Q: What is the leading case on penalty under section 271(1)(c)?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) is the decision most relied on for penalty under section 271(1)(c), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax. 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.

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)1,699 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 271(1)(c)

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 penalty under section 271(1)(c)

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4465/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

claim is not found to be bona fide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. If we take the view that a claim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4464/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4463/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

High Voit Electicals P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1, Palghar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4462/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

Pravin Vasant Mehta, Mumbai vs. Circle41(4)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 9024/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

only to account for possible inflation of purchase price or profit suppression. 5. Thus, in our considered view, the very edifice of penalty under section 271(1)(c) collapses in the absence of any cogent material demonstrating either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The estimation of gross

Abci Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, West Bengal vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle 1, Guwahati, Assam

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 419/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 274 of the Act was issued on the same date. The assessee was asked to show cause as to why the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied. The assessee replied notice by submitting that since the assessee as shown in the return ... filed under Section 153A has been accepted by the Assessing Officer, therefore, there is no question of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention of the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer and a penalty of ₹ 1,01,25,009/- was imposed

Abci Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, West Bengal vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle 1, Guwahati, Assam

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 418/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Shri Ajay Mayor, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1607/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 10. The issue before us is with respect to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of the amount received by the assessee from Mimosa Trust, which according to the Assessing Officer ... because the Assessing Officer did not accept the legal position taken by the assessee, the same cannot be a ground to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. Further, we also find merit in the contention of the assessee that the issue regarding taxability

Dazzler Confectionery Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1)(1, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8411/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Sarda, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

limb/charge for initiating the penalty proceedings and held as under: 16. It is well settled that the condition precedent for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is only when 9 Dazzler Confectionery Company, Private Limited, the Assessing Officer, in the course of proceedings, is satisfied that an assessee

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 687/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

No.686/RPR/2026, following grounds have been raised: “1. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating and levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the assessee has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 686/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 685/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Jagdishchandra Shantilal Chhatralia, Gujarat vs. Assesing Oficer, Rajkot

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

ITA 623/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 623/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

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

since condoned the delay in the quantum appeal and directed the CIT(A) to decide the case on its merits. 4. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not justified, as there was no deliberate intention to conceal income. The appellant's explanation

Dawat E Islami Ap, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1575/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1575/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dawat E Islami Ap, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Exemption Ward-1(1), Pan: Aabtd5383Q Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ca (Hybrid Mode) Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 05/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Dawat E Islami Ap, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 25/07/2025 For The A.Y.2015-16. Dawat E Islami Ap Vs. Ito

Section 12ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275

Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the Ld. AO was justified in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was rightly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Page 3 of 10 Dawat E Islami

Kuruzu Russelian, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-22(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the penalty levied u/s

ITA 2830/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Subramanian, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

delay, which was duly explained in the condonation petition. 8. For that, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) without properly considering the facts of the case. 9. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that ... deleted. 10. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and supported the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. The undisputed factual position emerging from

Sumanto Paul, Delhi vs. The Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 8755/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2016-17 Sumanto Paul, Vs The Assessing Officer, 139, Kohat Enclave, Assessment Unit, Pitampur, Income Tax Department, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan: Aajpp4082C

For Appellant: Ms Shruti Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Ld.CIT(A). 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel submitted before us that the show cause notice for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.01.2024 for the year under consideration though issued, no notice has been issued alleging either concealment of income or furnishing

Amish Pravinchandra Vyas, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the question is answered in the negative, i

ITA 1924/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the assessee appeal.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal was not right in upholding the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the reasons stated hereinbefore. 15. The reference stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2 1 1, Vadodara vs. Unimed Technologies Limited, Panchmahal

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

ITA 279/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 43A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. I.T.A No. 279/Ahd/2026

Bhairav Tube (India), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5494/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

Bombay High Court has held that, where the appeal of assessee against the addition made was pending before the Tribunal, order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was premature. 5.1 Another contention raised by the ld. AR that the order passed by ld. AO is without ... addition was sustained purely on estimate basis or when the addition was made which was on a pure guess work, hence, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be said to be leviable on such guess work or estimation. The Court accordingly answered the question

Sun Diam, Surat vs. ITO 2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1112/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of invalid penalty notice in which the limb of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 not mentioned. 3. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... submits that the Assessing Officer made addition in quantum assessment on estimation basis. It is admitted position under the law that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on estimated additions. The ld. AR prayed to delete the entire penalty. 5. On the other hand