“penalty u/s 271(1)(c)”

PenaltySection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)2,277 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal (9 SCC 589), cited in 200 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Atul Mohan Bindal

9 SCC 589 · 2009 · Supreme Court

200

citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarifies the scope of penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that for its applicability, conditions stated in the provision must strictly exist, and making an incorrect claim in law does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

CIT v. Subhash Trading Co. Ltd.

221 ITR 110 · 1996 · High Court

146

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act cannot be levied when an addition to income is based purely on an estimate, without concrete evidence proving concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

Prasanna Dugar v. CIT

70 Taxmann.com 175 · 2016 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied even if the assessee voluntarily discloses income after detection by the department or subsequent to a search, especially when the explanation provided is not bona fide or cannot be substantiated.

Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

135 Taxmann.com 244 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

A notice imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it shows non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer regarding the specific grounds for levying the penalty.

CIT v. Dhillon Rice Mills

256 ITR 447 · 2002 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable when additions to income are made on the basis of estimation, rather than on concrete evidence of concealment. Deletion of such a penalty is upheld.

ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF

348 ITR 561 · 2012 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Section 271AAA penalty deletion can be based on the Apex Court's decision in ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF (2012) 348 ITR 561, particularly when there was no specific question put to the assessee about the manner of earning undisclosed income.

CIT v. Norton Electronics Systems (P) Ltd.

41 Taxmann.com 280 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable when the income addition is made on an estimated basis without clinching material suggesting concealment or inaccurate particulars.

New Holland Tractors (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

49 Taxmann.com 573 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The charge of concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income may overlap. A taxpayer's conduct can be considered bonafide even if their submissions were rejected in the quantum appeal.

Judgments citing penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Das, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 1453/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Jaipur -4 both dated 16-10-2024 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2014-15 in the matter of confirming penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act 1961, raising therein following grounds of appeal; ITA No. 1453/JPR/2024 – Α.Υ. 2012-13 "1. That on the facts ... erred in law in not accepting the plea of the appellant that the proceedings initiated by the Id. AO for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 and consequent penalty of Rs 4,04,481 imposed by him is wrong

Crystal Thermotech Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 78/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice u/s 274 of the Act was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO imposed the penalty accordingly and this order was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the ld.CIT

Late Jagdish, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Jaipur

ITA 1437/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)

/NFAC. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without specifically pointing out specific limb of the section. The action of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against ... legal heir through a separate application in this regard. The appellant raised additional ground that the ld. AO has erred in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without specifically pointing out specially limb of the section. However, in this case there are two kinds of additions. Cash deposits in bank

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Honeywell Automation India Limited, Pune

ITA 2180/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Siddhesh Chougule[‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 10A(7)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the order dated 16.03.2020 passed by learned AO wherein penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated is bad in law, consequently the initiation of penalty along with the penalty proceedings are bad in law and deserves to be quashed ... less dispute between rival parties that, initial show cause notice issued by the Ld. AO to assume the jurisdiction for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was of standard format. The said notice was indisputably issued without striking off inapplicable limb or charge. It is also

Balasaheb Bhagwat Horane, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Pune

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated herein above

ITA 1808/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1807 & 1808/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Vs Ito, Ward-2 Balasaheb Bhagwat Horane, Pandharpur C/O Kapil Horane, Chandrabhaga Ghat, Pandharpur, Solapur- 413304 Maharashtra Pan-Aadph0707N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhoorFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl

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

file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Similar submissions were made against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). 5. I have heard rival ... during the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions period. Ld. AO concluded the proceedings making addition of Rs. 33,60,000/- and also levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 10,21,503/- Aggrieved with both the orders assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). During the appellate

Balasaheb Bhagwat Horane, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Pandharpur

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated herein above

ITA 1807/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhoorFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl

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

Gyan Vikas Samiti, Ambedkar Nagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ambedkar Nagar

In the result, the impugned orders of the Ld

ITA 8/ALLD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: (Application)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 249(4)Section 253(3)

novo order; the Ld. CIT(A) will be required to take a fresh look on the assessee’s appeal against levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT. Act also. Therefore, the impugned appellate order dated 13.03.2024 of Ld. CIT(A) in this appeal is also is set aside

Gyan Vikas Samiti, Ambedkar Nagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ambedkar Nagar

In the result, the impugned orders of the Ld

ITA 7/ALLD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: (Application)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 249(4)Section 253(3)

Champa Lal Mehta, Sanchore vs. ITO Ward-2 Jalore, Jalore

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

ITA 599/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

hereinafter referred to as "NFAC/CIT(A)"] in respect of assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 challenging therein confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 67200/- and 67200/- respectivelyon an addition made purely on acestimate basis. 2. We have heard both the sides, perused the record ... furnished on record by the assessee. We are of the view, that where the addition is sustained on the estimated basis no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied. 3. It is evident from the record that the AO failed to prove the concealment of income

Champa Lal Mehta, Sanchore vs. ITO Ward-2, Jalore

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

ITA 598/JODH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Basantilal Tarba, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-3(1)(2), Surat

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

ITA 512/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.512/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Bansntilal Tarba Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), बनाम/ 429/1023, Sundarnagar, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs. Ahimsa Circle, Bhilwara, Surat-395 001 Rajasthan- 311 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afipt 1037 P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.24,05,63,853/- in respect of estimation of income made in assessment of Rs.77,86,80,706/- @ 25% of accommodation transactions ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is erroneous since the initiation of penalty, in the assessment order, had been made “for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”, whereas the penalty has ultimately been levied on altogether different charge of “concealment

Mohamed Akbar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-10(3), Chennai

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1909/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymohamed Akbar, I.T.O., 2/2 1St St., Gf, Apt No. 2, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 10(3), Jamalia Perambur High Road, Chennai. Chennai-12 Pan No. Afepa 3815 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

Gains Accounts Scheme would have gone unnoticed. Therefore, this is a case of concealment of income by the assessee and hence, attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.” The Assessing Officer also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1217/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

remaining was confirmed, as agreed between the Competent authorities of both the countries. The AO is noted to have initiated and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in relation to the addition finally confirmed under the MAP resolution for AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17 and penalty under ... impugned addition was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as this Tribunal. Later on, the AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. On appeal, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal

Redington Distributions Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1216/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

M/S. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT, Intl Taxn Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1215/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Ramchandra Naveen, Bangalore

ITA 2083/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Ramchandra Naveen, Bangalore

ITA 2082/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Madison Teamworks Film Promotions and Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3533/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2013-14 Madison Teamworks Film Deputy Commissioner Of Promotions & Entertainment Income Tax-10(2)(2), Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 1St Floor, 349 Business Point, M.K. Road, Western Express Highway, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400069. Pan : Aaecm1006B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mr. Siddesh Chaugule & Ms. Manmeet Kaur Saini For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Siddesh Chaugule &For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)

Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 28-03-2025 wherein he has sustained the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds ... account of deemed dividend and Form-26AS mismatch and he accordingly held that it is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-1(B), in respect of the disallowance of Rs. 55,57,613/- and the penalty order accordingly was passed levying penalty amounting

Conwood Construction and Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle - 1(4), Mumbai

ITA 4756/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 254(1)Section 270(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

despite the fact that the Assessing Officer failed to arrive at satisfaction during the course of assessment proceedings whether the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income, which constitutes the basis and foundation of the proceedings for levy ... considering the assessee’s submission made before the Ld. AO, he did not find the same acceptable and accordingly had imposed the penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the tune of Rs. 12,63,882/-, falls within

Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta, Jaipur vs. Shri Nath Corporation, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

this way also the case of the assessee falls in the category of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and therefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is imposed on the concealed income for an amount of Rs.1,34,14,976/-. 5. Aggrieved by the above order ... this way also the case of the assessee falls in the category of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and therefore, penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is imposed on the concealed income as per working given below." As against the above argument, the appellant has relied upon number