← 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)

Bishwa Nath Ganguli, Dhanbad vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Dhanbad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 99/RAN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Officer after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, finally assessed the income at ₹ 6,38,000/- and also initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. During the penalty proceedings, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard ... assessee, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of ₹ 54,194/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing

Hitesh Jayantilal Modi (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 32(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3285/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Hitesh Jayantilal Modi (Huf) Income-Tax Officer- Ward 32(1)(5), B-302, Mahvideh, Near Municipal Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Garden, Chandavarkar Road, Mumbai. Borivali West, Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aabhh 3508 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Manoj MundraFor Respondent: 09/12/2024
Section 271(1)(c)

under: observed as under:- "The issue "The issue involved in the appeal revolves around involved in the appeal revolves around deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. deletion of penalty under Section 271

Abb Switzerland Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT (It)-1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 776/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

erred in committing a totaling error of Rs. 822,995 while calculating the total taxes payable by the Appellant. 10. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271A of the Act. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271A

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT (I) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 790/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

erred in committing a totaling error of Rs. 822,995 while calculating the total taxes payable by the Appellant. 10. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271A of the Act. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271A

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 940/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

erred in committing a totaling error of Rs. 822,995 while calculating the total taxes payable by the Appellant. 10. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271A of the Act. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271A

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2180/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

erred in committing a totaling error of Rs. 822,995 while calculating the total taxes payable by the Appellant. 10. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271A of the Act. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271A

Utkarsh Vasantkumar Mehta, Silvassa vs. DCIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1192/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

income. In our view, there was neither concealment of income nor furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof, thus, there is no justification of levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the AO is directed to delete the entire penalty levied under section 271(1)(c

Akm Resorts, Mohali vs. ACIT Circle 5(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

imposed penalty of Rs.1,62,330/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.8 The order of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act bearing No. ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/2019- 20/1016498274(1) is dated 25.06.2019 and since the assessee was aggrieved, he preferred first appeal under Section ... order dated 08.12.2018 observed that in view of the facts, he is satisfied that it is a fit case for initiation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA 42/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 9 4.3 We observe from careful perusal of the impugned assessment order dated

M/S Rameshth Construction, Jhansi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Jhansi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/AGR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A), Who Dismissed The Appeal Against Which The Assessee Preferred The Appeal Before The Tribunal & Tribunal Vide Order Dated

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

circumstances of the case the addition/disallowance per se cannot mean that the appellant has concealed and/or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not leviable. 4.That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case the learned ... NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was imposed for twin charges of concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas per the assessment order dated 28.04.2015 this penalty was initiated

Abdul Hameed Chikwa, Kanpur vs. ACIT, Kanpur

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

ITA 63/LKW/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Feb 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80HSection 8O

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH

D.C.I.T., Central Circle, Agra vs. M/S Pnc Infratech Ltd., Agra

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 94/AGR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

quotes (2024) 169 taxmann.com 16 (Delhi) Pawan Kumar Jaggi vs. ACIT to buttress the point that even in case of adhoc disallowances, penalty under section 271(1)(c) could very well be imposed. And case law (1992) 60 Taxman 51 (Allahabad) CIT v/s Radhey Shyam Shyam Sunder Jaiswal is also

M/S U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd, Lucknow vs. ACIT Range-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 26/LKW/2007[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Feb 2025AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit, Range-1 V. M/S. Up State Bridge Corporation Ltd Ashok Marg, Lucknow. 16, Madan Mohan Malviya Marg, Lucknow Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri B. P Yadav, Cost Acct Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B. P Yadav, Cost AcctFor Respondent: Smt Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 154Section 260ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

order dated 11.10.2006 of the Ld. CIT(A) and we restore the issue regarding imposition, and if imposed then the quantification of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, to the file of the Assessing Officer; with the Page 5 of 6 direction to pass denovo order

Blm Hospitals Private Limited, Farrukhabad vs. DCIT Circle 4(2)(1), Farrukhabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/AGR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned NFAC was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused ... have gone through the paper book placed before us. We find that the brief issue before us is the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) on two counts 1. excess claim of brought forward MAT credit and 2.disallowance of expenses incurred on earning exempt income

Konark Overseas Private Limited, Gandhidham vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham

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

ITA 502/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

because assessee had claimed expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) 9.2 We note that the Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in case of Lala Harbhagwan

Shri Rohit Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(3), Kanpur

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

ITA 352/LKW/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rohit Agarwal V. Ito-3(3) Room No.108, 1St Floor Kanpur 49/52, General Ganj Radha Kripa, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abapa2045C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 154Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

file to the office of the AO for providing one last opportunity to the assessee to explain before the AO why the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be imposed. Accordingly, the AO is directed to adjudicate the issue of imposition of penalty de novo

Electronic Instrumantation & Control Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), (Previously Circle-2(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1964/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1964/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Electronic Instrumentation & The Ito बनाम/ Control Private Limited Ward-2(1)(1) V/S. 56, Panchratna Ind. Estate [Previously Circle-2(1)(1)] Changodhar Industrial Area Ahmedabad – 380 015 Sarkhej Bavla Road Changodar, Ahmedabad – 382 213 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaace 4798 G (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pamil H. Shah Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Pamil H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

order dated 14.10.2019 in ITA No.2837/Ahd/2014, had already deleted the quantum addition of Rs.12,18,000/-, which formed the basis for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This order was placed on record before the CIT(A), yet it was not even acknowledged in the impugned ... CCIT), Ahmedabad, for appropriate administrative review of such deficient appellate adjudication. Since the quantum addition has been deleted by the ITAT, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive. The CIT(A)’s order is set aside as being perverse, arbitrary, and passed without application

Sushil Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

ITA 1408/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ι

Future Gaming and Hotel Services P Ltd, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 950/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.950/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Future Gaming & Hotel Acit बनाम/ Services Private Limited Central Circle-2, 54, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. Vs. Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 029. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-9751-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Cit-Dr A/W Ms. Anitha (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - LdFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. CIT-DR a/w Ms. Anitha (Addl. CIT) – Ld.
Section 153ASection 271A

relevant for assessment of the income under section 68/69 and other related provisions of the Act and also for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in view of the relevant provisions of section 68/69 and 271(1)(c) of the Act. However

Capacite Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 6308/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani
Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

this issue. Thus, given the facts and circumstances of the present case we hold that the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our view 3 Assessment Year 2016-2017 draws support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)-3(4), Mumbai vs. Ambuja Cements Limited, Mumbai

ITA 312/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: the Assessing Officer to set out his defence against levy of penalty?." 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a public Limited company engaged, inter alia, in manufactured and sale of cement, filed original return of income for the Assessment Year 2011–2012 on 30/11/2011. Thereafter, the Assessee filed a revised return of income on 27/11/2012, which was selected for regular scrutiny.

For Appellant: Shri Vartik ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. During the penalty proceedings, the Assessee was asked to show cause as to why penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income vide notice, dated 07/06/2017, issued under Section ... income. However, while passing Penalty Order, the Assessing Officer had concluded that the present case was a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. Reliance in this regard was also placed on Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c