“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)

Seva Ram Sahu, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(5), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 820/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 820/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

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

Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The sole issue challenges the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 1 Seva Ram Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(5) Raipur 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal

Meghji Mansukhlal Dodhia, Bhiwandi vs. DCIT-CC-3, Thane

ITA 2224/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. It(Ss)A No. 2226/Mum/2025 S.A. No. 79/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mansukhlal Meghji Dodhia House No. 104, Dodhia House, New Mavji Compound, Narpoli, Maharashtra-421 302 (Applicant) Dcit Cc-3, Thane Vs. Room No. 12, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Thane, West, Maharashtra - 400 604 Pan/Gir No. Aaspd6746L (Respondent) 2. Ita No. 2224/Mum/2025 S.A. No. 80/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. It(Ss)A No. 2223/Mum/2025 S.A. No. 81/Mum/2025 & 4. It(Ss)A No. 2222/Mum/2025 S.A. No. 82/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 5. It(Ss)A No. 2225/Mum/2025 S.A. No. 83/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Meghji Mansukhlal Dodhia House No. 104, Dodhia House, New Mavji Compound, Narpoli, Maharashtra-421 302 (Applicant) Dcit Cc-3, Thane Vs. Room No. 12, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Thane, West, Maharashtra - 400 604 Pan/Gir No. Aaspd6746L (Respondent) (2) It(Ss)A No. 2226, 2223, 2222 & 2225/Mum/2025 &

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69D

circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify and/or delete ... circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify and/or delete

M/S. Cimmco Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5724/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Hon’Ble & Shri Naveen Chandra, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2005-06. 2. This is a case of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). None appeared from the assessee side therefore, we decided to proceed ahead ex-parte with 1|Page 5724_DEL_2016_CIMMCO LTD the assistance ... quantified the said expense as capital expenditure which was disallowed. The ld DR submitted that as the assessee filed inaccurate particulars, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied. 5. We have heard the submissions and perused the materials on record. We find that the disallowance was made

M/S. M M Brothers, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule

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

ITA 477/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

year 2014-15. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.5,41,176 levied by the A.O. without appreciating that the specific limb/ charge of section 271(1)(c) on the basis ... Cola India (P) Ltd. [368 ITR 487]. 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.5,41,176 levied by the A.O. without appreciating that in the quantum appeal, the CIT(A) had modified the basis

Walia Agni Industries Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1534/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ninad KulkarniFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

alteram partem. 3. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, imposed by 2 ITA No.1534/PUN/2024, AY 2014-15 the Ld. AO to the tune of Rs. 1

Incometax Officer, Ward-1, Ballari vs. Bellary Urban Development Authority, Ballari

ITA 1523/BANG/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ajith V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy .N, JCIT-DR

Section 10(46)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(Appeal) was correct in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by not considering the fact that return of income is not filed voluntarily u/s 139(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 but filed in response ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(Appeal) was correct in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on that part of assessed income representing returned income by not considering the fact that return of income is not filed voluntarily w/s 139(1

Winwood Marketing Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2196/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Winwood Marketing Pvt. Ltd..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Agarwal Vishwanath & Associates, 133/1/1A, Sn Banerjee Road, Pushkal Bhawan 3Rd Floor, Kol – 700013. [Pan: Aabcw3528M] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata…….……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subhankar Ghosh, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.09.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 Declaring A Total Income Nil. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass With The Reason ‘Large Share Premium Received’. Accordingly, Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued. The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Was Passed Determining Total Income Of Rs.4,79,44,500/- (Share Capital Of Rs.8,30,000/- + Premium Of Rs.4,71,14,500/-) & The Assessing Officer Also Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A), Wherein, The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed & The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) As Made By The Assessing Officer Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein, the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed by ld. CIT(A). 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbai vs. Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1161/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

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

facts of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) has erred in basing his decision to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by determining whether 'malafide' was involved or not, when the provision does not give any leverage for determining the intent of the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbai vs. Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1160/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbai vs. Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1159/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(It)-2(1)-2, Mumbai vs. Dz Bank India Representative Office, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue and the cross-objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1158/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

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

Aromatrix Flora (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2100/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

availability of MAT credit and thus a genuine, unintentional mistake of understanding of the statute could not be a basis to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 1.3. That the conclusion there was concealment of income by the learned Assessing Officer and, wrong particulars of income ... learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) itself vitiates the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 1.4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that penalty proceeding and quantum proceedings are distinct proceedings and therefore conclusion drawn in quantum proceeding cannot automatically

Maa Rupadevi Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7499/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2015-16 Maa Rupadevi Nagari Sahakari Income Tax Officer, Path Sanstha Maryadit, Ward-1(1), Pathebahadur Chawl, Vs. Thane. Tekdi Road No.33, Roopadevi, Wagle Estate, Thane (West), Maharashtra-400606. Pan : Aactm2530R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Satish Kadam For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Satish KadamFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 17-10-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, sustaining the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessment in this case ... therefore, merely the fact that there is a mistake in calculation of tax, it cannot be held that the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied. It was further noted by the AO that the assessee has not filed any appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) against

Renu Aggarwal, Punjab vs. ACIT/DCIT Cen Cir, Patiala, Punjab

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 714/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) and Sh. Hrithik SinglaFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

ground has been urged in the appeal. The appeal stands partly allowed. 6. In ITA No.714/Chandi/2025, the assessee has challenged confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.3,28,271/-. The same has been levied considering the quantum addition as sustained by Ld. CIT(A). Since we have granted

Renu Aggarwal, Punjab vs. ACIT/DCIT Cen Cir, Ptl, Punjab

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1306/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) and Sh. Hrithik SinglaFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69A

P Cube Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir.13(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 7407/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (Sr. DR)

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

Subsequently, ITAT upheld the action of the CIT(A) in its order in ITA No. 4787/Mum/2017. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition sustained. 4. In the subsequent appeal against the penalty order, the assessee contested the penalty stating that ... this given background, it was argued before us by the Ld. AR that addition has been made on estimation basis, therefore penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. The Ld. AR has relied upon the recent order of Jurisdictional ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Atul Properties

Shree Tekchandji Maharaj Trust, Ujjain vs. Assessing Officer, Ujjain

ITA 537/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6580/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 9. The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. All the above grounds are strictly independent and without prejudice to each other. 11. The Appellant craves liberty to add/modify/alter/amend or delete

Kovalam Resort Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6579/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6578/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)