← 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)

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5873/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

completed the assessments of AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. After finalization of assessments in remitted proceedings, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in all these cases. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the all appeals of relevant

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5872/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

completed the assessments of AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. After finalization of assessments in remitted proceedings, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in all these cases. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the all appeals of relevant

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5871/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

completed the assessments of AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. After finalization of assessments in remitted proceedings, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in all these cases. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the all appeals of relevant

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5870/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

completed the assessments of AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. After finalization of assessments in remitted proceedings, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in all these cases. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the all appeals of relevant

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5869/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

completed the assessments of AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. After finalization of assessments in remitted proceedings, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in all these cases. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the all appeals of relevant

Amq Agro India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-07, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeals of the above mentioned AYs are

ITA 5868/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

completed the assessments of AYs 2008-09 to 2012-13. After finalization of assessments in remitted proceedings, the AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in all these cases. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the all appeals of relevant

Shree Sharanavasaceshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ni Halingali, Halingali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bagalkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 Shree Sharanabasaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ni Halingali Ito Tq Jamkhandi, Dt Bagalkot Vs. Ward-1 Halingali, Karnataka 587315 Bagalkot Pan No :Aaeas6699C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 07.11.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070176573(1) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

therefore as the issue becomes debatable and the claim of the assessee is bonafide, the Ld. AO should not have levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Shree Sharanabasaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ni Halingali Page 4 of 7 8. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied ... claimed the expenditure, which claim was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every return where the claim made is not accepted

M/S. Religare Capital Markets Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 753/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 68Section 92Section 92B

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in proposing to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. DRP's Findings: This ground is of consequential nature. Penalty proceedings are separate proceedings. Therefore, the objection

Upendra Kumar Soni, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Corcle-Kota, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 827/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

books of account but assessee failed to furnish any evidence regarding transactions which led to credit from said creditors, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was justified. The head notes of the decision is as under- "Section 68, read with section 271(1)(c), of the Income ... creditors - Thereafter, Assessing Officer issued notices to creditors and only one creditor turned up and confirmed balance outstanding Assessing Officer thus, levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on ground that there was concealment and non-furnishing of particulars of income - It was noted that assessee had not produced

Upendra Kumar Soni, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle-Kota, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 826/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

books of account but assessee failed to furnish any evidence regarding transactions which led to credit from said creditors, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was justified. The head notes of the decision is as under- "Section 68, read with section 271(1)(c), of the Income ... creditors - Thereafter, Assessing Officer issued notices to creditors and only one creditor turned up and confirmed balance outstanding Assessing Officer thus, levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) on ground that there was concealment and non-furnishing of particulars of income - It was noted that assessee had not produced

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Kamrudinbhai R. Makhani, Rajkot

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 333/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

inaccurate of particulars income of Rs.83,91,064/- vide order dated 04.03.2019. 5. The Assessing officer while passing assessment order initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded and worked out the penalty of Rs.83

Jar Metal Industries(P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-13(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 9695/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

under:- “1. BECAUSE the "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on wrong assumption of facts and against the law and without considering overall facts and circumstances of the case. [Tax effect 1 ... Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) and the other decisions of different High Courts, the ITAT rightly held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the assessee was not valid. 24. We are unable to find any error having been

Jar Metal Industries(P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-13(2), New Delhi

ITA 9694/DEL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

under:- “1. BECAUSE the "CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on wrong assumption of facts and against the law and without considering overall facts and circumstances of the case. [Tax effect 1

Christudanam Yassaya, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 149/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(c)

filed by the assessee against separate orders passed by the learned CIT(A), all dated 18.04.2024 / 01.03.2024, respectively confirming the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the respective assessment years. Since the issues involved

Christudanam Yassaya, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 148/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(c)

filed by the assessee against separate orders passed by the learned CIT(A), all dated 18.04.2024 / 01.03.2024, respectively confirming the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the respective assessment years. Since the issues involved

Christudanam Yassaya, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 147/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(c)

filed by the assessee against separate orders passed by the learned CIT(A), all dated 18.04.2024 / 01.03.2024, respectively confirming the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the respective assessment years. Since the issues involved

Christudanam Yassaya, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, all four appeals are allowed

ITA 146/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(c)

filed by the assessee against separate orders passed by the learned CIT(A), all dated 18.04.2024 / 01.03.2024, respectively confirming the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the respective assessment years. Since the issues involved

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR These cases held that claiming CSR deduction in violation of the statute justifies penalty under Section 271(1)(c), particularly when no supporting justification exists. 4. Section 14A Disallowance – No Disallowance Made Despite Earning Exempt Income The assessee earned exempt income ... Held: CSR expenditure is application of income and not incurred wholly for business purposes. Hence, not allowable and claiming the same invites penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in absence of bona fide explanation. B. Cases Supporting Disallowance under Section 14A PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.)Ltd. Citation

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

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

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025 These cases held that claiming CSR deduction in violation of the statute justifies penalty under Section 271(1)(c), particularly when no supporting justification exists. 4. Section 14A Disallowance No Disallowance Made Despite Earning Exempt Income The assessee earned exempt income ... Trib.) CSR expenditure is application of income and not incurred wholly for business purposes. Hence, not allowable and claiming the same invites penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in absence of bona fide explanation. B. Cases Supporting Disallowance under Section 14A PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.)Ltd. Citation

Bioagile Therapeutics Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 376/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R, Ld. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(3)Section 80Section 80I

which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted ... Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature”. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd Vs. State of Orissa on 4 August