← 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)

Jivanlal Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1330/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Jivanlal Corporation ITA No. 1330/Mum./2024 2. The only grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts ... 1,92,450. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Thus, it is evident from the record that the AO treated the entire purchase

Dinesh Sunderji Shah, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result both the appeals are allowed

ITA 275/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok L. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(X)

assessee. 016. In the result, ITA No.275/Mum/2024 is allowed. 017. ITA No. 274/Mum/2024, is filed by the assessee against the confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13 by appellate order dated 30th November, 2023, by the NFAC, wherein the appeal filed ... Commissioner of income tax versus Ambady Krishna Menon (ITA number 75 of 2020) dated 20/5/2024 wherein on identical facts and circumstances the penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the act is deleted. He further referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of ACIT

Dinesh Sunderji Shah, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals are allowed

ITA 274/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashok L. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(X)

assessee. 016. In the result, ITA No.275/Mum/2024 is allowed. 017. ITA No. 274/Mum/2024, is filed by the assessee against the confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13 by appellate order dated 30th November, 2023, by the NFAC, wherein the appeal filed ... Commissioner of income tax versus Ambady Krishna Menon (ITA number 75 of 2020) dated 20/5/2024 wherein on identical facts and circumstances the penalty under section 271 (1) (C) of the act is deleted. He further referred to the decision of the coordinate bench in case of ACIT

Shri Ram Babu Singh, Indore vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 328/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Ram Babu Singh, Dcit-1(1) C/O Sv Agrawal & Associates, Bhopal Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Vs. Near Rafael Tower, Old Palasia, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aelps9945K Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 & 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23 .07.2024

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

senior counsel who advised my counsel to immediately file an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Indore Bench challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 55,00,000/-, 5. It was for the aforesaid reason that the present appeal is being filed ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 55,00,000/- even when such penalty was levied on the basis of defective show cause notice which

Raj Kumar Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

Appeals are disposed of, for statistical purposes

ITA 921/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Bhardwaj (CIT) vk;dj
Section 143(3)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

Form-35. 2. On 25.06.2024, another appeal filed by the assessee-appellant before Learned CIT(A), challenging penalty order dated 15.03.2018 levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, relating to the aforesaid assessment year came to be dismissed, for the same reasons. Hence, these two appeals

Raj Kumar Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Jaipur

Appeals are disposed of, for statistical purposes

ITA 816/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Bhardwaj (CIT) vk;dj
Section 143(3)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

Form-35. 2. On 25.06.2024, another appeal filed by the assessee-appellant before Learned CIT(A), challenging penalty order dated 15.03.2018 levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, relating to the aforesaid assessment year came to be dismissed, for the same reasons. Hence, these two appeals

Johnson Mattey India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1247/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Johnson Mattey India P. Ltd., Vs Addl.Cit, C/O Luthra & Luthra, Range-5, Law Offices India, New Delhi. 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacj2919A Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Vs. Johnson Mattey India P. Ltd., Circle-13(1), C/O Luthra & Luthra, New Delhi. Law Offices India, 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba Road, Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacj2919A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Radhika Sharma, Advocate & Shri Sumit Mangal, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Parul Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 03.03.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-44

For Appellant: Ms Radhika Sharma, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 547/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 546/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

fresh return and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no addition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of established concealment of income

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 545/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

fresh return and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no addition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of established concealment of income

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 544/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

fresh return and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no addition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of established concealment of income

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI

Alpa Rajesh Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 467/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeealpa Rajesh Desai Vs Ito 19(1)(1), Mumbai 15/32, Navjivan Society, Piramal Chambers, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 008 Pan : Aelpd3053K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Mona SolankiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(SR.DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Admittedly, addition has been made on an estimated basis in all the three years under consideration. The question is whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could be levied on addition made on estimated basis. This question was examined by the co- ordinate bench in assessee ... case and it was held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable on addition made on estimated basis. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the operative portion of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench in Assessment Year

Lalit Bhaskar Bhalerao, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 2(5), Kalyan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 391/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeemr. Lalit Bhaskar Bhalerao Vs The Ito.W. 2(5), Kalyan Rom No. 25-B, 6Th Floor, Ashar It (Individual), Plot No. 56, Flat No. 101, Hansa Park, Wagale Indl, Estate, Apartment Kansai Section, Thane-400604 Ambernath East, Thane-421501 Pan : Ammpb3272D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Hetal LaghaveFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(SRDR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 156Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 44A

assessment, the Ld.AO proceeded to issue notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is leviable amount to Rs.6,28,020/- i.e. @100% of the of tax sought to be evaded

Kent Engineering India Private Limted, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4750/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Kent Engineering India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Commissioner Of Income Shastri Marg, Vikharoli, Tax (Appeal), 1(2)(1), Gagorre Nagar, S.O. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Embassy 247, Tower C Mumbai-400 020 Vikhroli, Mumbai-400 083 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr1966M Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dhiraj Kumar, DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Learned AO in not recording any direction regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in order to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty proceedings are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. Ground No. 3-On the facts ... upholding / confirming the action of the Learned AO erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in levying of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without establishing any mens rea on part of the Appellant without which penalty could not have been levied. Ground

Ashok Kumar Chauhan, Prop. Gurcharan Jewellers vs. ITO Ward 45(5), Civic Centre

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

ITA 1625/DEL/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaashok Kumar Chauhan, Vs. Ito, Ward 45 (5), Prop. Gurcharan Jewellers, New Delhi. 17/2, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi – 110 018. (Pan : Aaapc1500F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Order : 16.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 15.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1.1 That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Upholding The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Additions On Account Of Gift Of Rs.15,00,000/- & Undisclosed Stock Of Rs.12,33,382/- Without Appreciating The Correct Factual Position & Considering The Submissions Filed By The Appellant. 1.2 That Both These Issues Were Not Part Of The Assessment Order Dated 06/03/2013Passed U/S 254/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Resulted In Impugned Penalty Proceedings

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 254Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

orders passed by the lower authorities are not sustainable on facts and same are bad in law.” 3. In this case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was directed by the ld. CIT (A) to be levied on the following

Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Bhavnagar

ITA 167/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

element of the Appellant having concealed the income. There is thus absolutely no justification in the action of the AO in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in this regard. Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai Vs. DCIT AY : 2009-10 13 2.2.4 In the context of what

Mahesh Vrajlal Babaria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax-Officer, Circle-18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 1867/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271

section 14A, especially in relation to shares held as trading assets, was clearly debatable and so it cannot be visited with penalty under section 271 (1)(c). Further we find that the assessee has furnished all the details relating to the earning of dividend income. So, it cannot be said

Shri Khatu Shyam Builders, Jaipur vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

expenses like cost of construction and development and claimed deduction of same - Assessing Officer disallowed expenses claimed by assessee and, further, imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon it - It was noted that expenditures disallowed during relevant assessment years were otherwise eligible and same were allowed in next assessment ... Assessing Officer and no addition was made by doubting and disturbing figures and amounts mentioned - Whether, on facts, impugned imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 14, 17 and 18] [In favour of assessee]” 2.10 The fact that entire claim

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1872/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH