“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)

DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Michael Page International Recruitment Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3090/MUM/2023[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, CA andFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(e)Section 274

objector had made full and adequate disclosure of all the material facts at the time of filing its return of income. • no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied when there are two plausible views or opinions on the issue. The Assessee prays that

Echo Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1469/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 1469/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Echo Entertainment Private Limited,…..……Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Aadcc0535E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-1(4), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26, 2024 O R D E R

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

come in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the main contention of the assessee is that initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) 2 Echo Entertainment Private Limited was improper as the assessee neither concealed its income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is argued ... sale consideration of copy rights and cable rights leading to an addition of Rs.76,00,000/-, which is justified for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. D.R. further argued that there was sufficient material to support the penalty order and that the assessee

M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd. (Formerly M.S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.), Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 277/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.276 & 277/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Orchid Pharma Ltd. [Formerly Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of M.S. Orchid Chemicals & Income Tax, Pharmaceuticals Ltd.] 313, Orchid Central Circle 1(1), Towers, Valluvarkottam High Road, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaco0402B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. & Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Both Dated 28.02.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 238Section 271(1)(c)Section 30(2)Section 31(1)Section 35Section 36Section 37

section 35(2AB) of the Act as well as prepaid 3 I.T.A. Nos.276 & 277/Chny/22 finance charges, against which, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹.15,00,00,000/-, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 7. Before

M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd. (Formerly M.S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.), Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 276/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 238Section 271(1)(c)Section 30(2)Section 31(1)Section 35Section 36Section 37

Kanhiaya Lal Sain, Jaipur vs. JCIT Range-7 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 1022/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

proceedings under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act. Once the Assessing Officer decided to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing ... proceedings under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act. Once the Assessing Officer decided to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequently, reference was made to Addl. CIT to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act, the Assessing

Vijay M. Mistry Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. NFAC (Delhi) AO Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1105/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80I

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 2013-14. I.T.A No. 1105/Ahd/2024

ACIT, Amravati Circle, Amravati vs. Chandrapur Dist Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe

Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

made from the documents submitted by the assessee along with the return of income. Consequent upon such addition, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for ` 21.40 crore. The assessee being aggrieved with the penalty order, filed appeal before the first appellate authority ... 271(1)(c) of the Act by passing a detailed and elaborate order. The observations of the learned CIT(A) deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are reproduced below:– “6.0 I have considered the submission made by the counsel of appellant and perused the evidence

P. Saji Textiles Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent.Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4868/MUM/2024[A.Y 2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2024

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.J. Ninawe, Sr. DR

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

reduced disallowance made in the quantum appeal. The Revenue is in appeal against the partial relief given by the CIT(A) towards penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee preferred an appeal before the Co-ordinate Bench against ... further submitted that the assessee preferred appeal against the order of the CIT(A) partially confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied by the AO before the Co-ordinate Bench. The ld. AR also submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench has held that where the addition is sustained

Smt. Ambuja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1416/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

interest) of Rs.84,30,252/-. The Ld AO has levied interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act and has initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos. 1415 & 1416/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 6 10. Being aggrieved by the additions made in the assessment order

Smt. Ambuja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1415/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Dwarka Gems Limited, Jaipur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 847/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 80I

together for the sake of convenience. In this regard, it is submitted that preliminary issue challenging the validity of the order imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for during the year under consideration is the defective notices for initiating penalty issued

Shripal Bhawarlal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 3757/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee () & Miss. Padmavathy S. () Shripal Bhawarlal Jain Vs Dcit, Mumbai, Flat No.4, 2Nd Floor, Surya Apartments Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400 051 Vp Road,Andheri West, Mumbai-400 058 Pan: Adkpj1987G Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 158BSection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

other parties and assessee was unable to produce the said parties and summons returned back unserved. In the said case also the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was confirmed and decided in favour of the revenue. But on factual matrix in the present appeal, the bogus purchase has never

Adani Green Energy Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1002/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1002/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Adani Green Energy Limited The Principal Cit Adani Corporate House बनाम/ Ahmedabad-1 Shantigram 15, S.G. Highway V/S. Near Vaishno Devi Circle Khodiyar B.O., Khodiyar Ahmedabad – 382 421 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanca 1814 G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Dated 16-03-2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. Adani Green Energy Limited Vs. Pr.Cit Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd.(supra) is concerned, it is crucial to note that this decision deals with the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and the retrospective applicability of amendments regarding penalties. The principles laid down in Gold Coin Health Food

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 574/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Us, Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

appellant was duly supported by a decision of the Supreme Court. Penalty proceedings are quasi criminal proceedings and to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c), conscious concealment is necessary. In the instant case the appellant has given a full disclosure in the return of income itself and has also

N R Constructions, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/VIZ/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 18/Viz/2024 (धििाधरणिरध/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) N R Constructions V. Acit – Circle – 1 Kakinada 2-59-7, Shanthi Nagar Kakinada – 533003 Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Aabfn7969A] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) यरद्त्य्पयतय्यिध/ Assessee Represented By : Ms. Keerthana, Ar र्जसय्पयतय्यिध/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar सु्व्ईसम्पहो्ेय्यतयि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 घोषण्य्त्र्ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri S Balakrishnan: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

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

assessee, merely because said claim was not accepted or was not acceptable by the revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Page No. 5 I.T.A. No. 18/VIZ/2024 NR Constructions Further this Tribunal in the case of Potluri Phanendra Babu

Moni Kumar Subba, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-08, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3794/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usshri Moni Kumar Subba Vs. Acit 118, Subba Farm House, Central Circle – 08, Vill. Sultanpur, Mehrauli New Delhi Gurgaon Road Delhi – 110 030 Pan No. Aasps 1484 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. S. Singhvi, C.A. Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.A. Shri Rajat Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(47)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

capital gains arising from the first appellate order as pointed out hereinabove. 5.1 The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law broadly on two counts; firstly, the capital gains determined to be taxable by virtue ... particulars of income’ in any manner. Thus, mere disallowance or additions in quantum proceedings ipso facto would not invite imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.3 The learned Counsel, in conclusion, thus submitted that the penalty imposed in the present case is unjust and improper

Diamond Tools Industries, Mumbai vs. 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3333/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(a)

were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing ... decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts of the present case is not justifiable, and accordingly the same is deleted. As a result

Diamond Tools Industries, Mumbai vs. 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3254/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(a)

Mahadevan Hariharan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle -61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the penalty appeal; ITA No

ITA 1099/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 198Section 271(1)(c)

invoked.” 2 & 1099/Del/2023 ITA No. 1099/Del/2023, A.Y. 2011-12 “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) should not be imposed.” ITA No. 2636/Del/2018, A.Y. 2011-12 4. The facts, in brief, relevant for deciding these appeals are that the appellant/assessee ... 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

Mahadevan Hariharan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the penalty appeal; ITA No

ITA 2636/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 198Section 271(1)(c)