← All Phrases

“penalty under section 271(1)(c)”

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)

Vishal Osatwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1217/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Vishal Osatwal………………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Ground Floor, 34/1U, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kol – 700019. [Pan: Aanpo2583R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-29(1), Kolkata………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 10, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2014-15 On 30.07.2014 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.17,62,746/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Filed Revised Computation Of Income Offering Additional Income Of Rs.74,62,846/- Being Ltcg Claimed As Exempt In The Original Return Of Income. The Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 20-10-2016 Determining The Assessee'S Total Income At Rs.92,97,450/- By Making Addition Of Rs.74,62,846/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Ltcg & Disallowance Of Legal Expenses Of Rs. 3,809/-. In Respect Of Both These Vishal Osatwal Additions, The Assessing Officer Also Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section ... Income-tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section

Bhagwat Prasad Malviya, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(1), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 456/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya Ito -3(1) 28, Crp Phatak Road Bhopal बनाम/ Bairagarh, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afbpm8998M Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 548Section 54B

271(1)(c). 9.17 This ground is premature as the penalty order, if any, is a separate proceeding. The mere initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be challenged in an appeal against a rectification order. The assessee shall have an opportunity to contest such penalty, if levied

Proton Positive Health Care India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle -16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 812/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.812/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Proton Positive Health Vs. Assistant Commissioner Care India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), Pan: Aafcp6862K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 07/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 28/06/2019 For Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

provide their complete postal addresses, PAN etc. Accordingly, the AO, by treating the aforementioned outstanding liabilities as unexplained, had imposed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee company had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 12. In our view, although the assessee ... accepted but circumstances do not lead to the reasonable and positive inference that the assesse's case is false, then no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be validly imposed. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations of Hon’ble High Court

Prasanth Puttamareddy, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1555/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 271(1)(c)Section 69

assessee is consequential to the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1554/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17. The A.O. levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the addition made towards investment for purchase of property under Section ... that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the issues on merits. It was further submitted that, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is purely consequential in nature and cannot survive since the quantum assessment in ITA No. 1554/Hyd/2025 has been restored to the file

Prasanth Puttamareddy, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1554/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 271(1)(c)Section 69

assessee is consequential to the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1554/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17. The A.O. levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the addition made towards investment for purchase of property under Section ... that the Ld. CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the issues on merits. It was further submitted that, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is purely consequential in nature and cannot survive since the quantum assessment in ITA No. 1554/Hyd/2025 has been restored to the file

DCIT 19.1 Mumbai, Lalbag Mumbai vs. Ambika Diamonds, Bkc Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5873/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: None
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

disallowance was confirmed @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases vide ITA No. 5355/M/2015 & 5689/M/3016 dated 18.08.2017. 3. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessing officer levied the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. In appeal against the penalty levied under ... parties, restricted the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. It is settled legal position that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on adhoc disallowance. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire

Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/PAT/2023[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should go back

Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 97/PAT/2023[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should go back

Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/PAT/2023[1988-89]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1988-89

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should go back

Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 95/PAT/2023[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should go back

Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 94/PAT/2023[1986-87]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1986-87

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should go back

M/S. Mastrin Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/PAT/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should go back

M/S. Mastrin Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/PAT/2023[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should go back

M/S. Mastrin Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 89/PAT/2023[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should go back

M/S. Mastrin Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 88/PAT/2023[1988-89]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1988-89

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should go back

M/S. Mastrin Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 87/PAT/2023[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should go back

M/S. Mastrin Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 86/PAT/2023[1986-87]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1986-87

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should go back

Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 101/PAT/2023[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should go back

Sri Tripurari Mohan Prasad, Patna vs. DCIT, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/PAT/2023[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Nov 2025AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A. H. Chowdhary, CIT (DR)
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

rival submissions and perused material available on the record. We find that all these appeals are filed against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the quantum appeals are pending before the learned CIT (A), all the penalty appeals should go back

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Bhopal vs. Madhya Pradesh Police Housing Corporation Limited, Bhopal

In the result, these appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 401/IND/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI