Which cases are most cited on Section 143(1)(c)?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) — 2,590 citing judgments; CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158) — 2,228 citing judgments; Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (328 ITR 81) — 1,183 citing judgments; CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (73 Taxmann.com 248) — 953 citing judgments; Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11) — 812 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 143(1)(c)?

BharatTax indexes 11 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 143(1)(c) (Section 143(1)(c)).

← All Phrases

“Section 143(1)(c)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 143(1)(c)?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) is the decision most relied on for Section 143(1)(c), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax. 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.

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(1)(c)11 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(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.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court

1,183

citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

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.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.

331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court

694

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

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.

Judgments citing Section 143(1)(c)

Sonali Dhawan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3748/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun KaushalFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(c)

therefore, not a case where the TDS deducted has not been deposited. It was further submitted that as per the provisions of section 143(1)(c) of the Act, so long as the TDS is deducted even if not paid by the deductor, Coordinate Benches have gone ahead and have

Nkb Infrastructure Private Limited, Rewari, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rewari, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5312/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Yash Gilhotra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 219Section 239Section 250Section 254

That in the facts and in the law, departure of Income Tax Department from correct computation of refund required under section 143(1)(c) of the Act cannot vitiate the claim of the Appellant with respect to excess of prepaid taxes over and above the tax payable on the income

Shri Pawan Kumar Ruia., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir- 30, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1197/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1197/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pawan Kumar Ruia…..…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant 5, Sunny Park, Kolkata – 700019. [Pan: Acnpr3823K] Vs. Dcit, Circle-30, Kolkata.......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 23, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating Non-Credits Of Tds Of Rs.95,80,949/- Out Of Total Tds Claim Of Rs.2,18,82,526/-. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Salary Income & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 17.07.2014 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.6,52,52,390/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Vide Order Dated 17.12.2016 At A Total Income Of Rs.6,86,66,708/-. The Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 250

been abridged by insertion of proviso to section 209(1), but the open space between the 'tax deducted at source' as per section 143(1)(c) and 'tax deducted at source and deposited' still persists. 9. Coming back to the context under consideration, we find that the requirement for allowing

Mewat Grit Udyog (Since Dissolved) Through Its Successor Nkb Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Rewari, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rewari, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 372/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234CSection 254Section 263Section 40

source, any advance tax paid, etc. by the Assessee, from the tax, which was required to be paid by it, as per section 143(1)(c) of the Act. The refund generated to the Assessee was Rs. 65,99,880/- whereas the correct refund was Rs.73,40,257/-. Hence, refund

Shri Deepak Kumar Ruia, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 32(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 311/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

been abridged by insertion of proviso to section 209(1), but the open space between the ‘tax deducted at source’ as per section 143(1)(c) and 'tax deducted at source and deposited’ still persists. 9. Coming back to the context under consideration, we find that the requirement for allowing

Sharangpani Dinkar Pant, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3353/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sharangpani Dinkar Ito It 3(3)(1), Pant, International Tax Ward- 402, Bhoomi Oscar, 3(3)(1), Plot No.16/17, Vs. Air India Building, Sector-9, Mumbai – 400 021 Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai - 400 701 Pan: Aippp0288E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Balaji V, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Anil Sant, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13 . 02 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26 . 02 . 2024 O R D E R Per : Amarjit Singh: Both These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Same Assessment Year I.E. 2018-19 Against The Two Different Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act On The Common Issue Of Allowability Of Tds Credit Of Rs.17,59,258/- Which Was Not Allowed By The Ao Vide Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act & Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Vide Ita

For Appellant: Shri Balaji V, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(b)Section 143(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

erred in not directing the Ld. JAO to allow the TDS credit of Rs. 17,59,258 as required by Section 143(1)(c) of the Act which provides that the amount of refund due to the assessee is required to be determined after adjustment of tax as computed

Sharangpani Dinkar Pant, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3352/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Balaji V, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(b)Section 143(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Shree Sanaliya Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Lital Motaliliya Sanaliya, Dist. Amreli vs. The DCIT (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, all the 4 appeals are allowed

ITA 204/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR &

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

deduction under Section 80P to the returned income is not filed within due date. The assessee filed response in reply to communication under Section 143(1)(c) of the Act by stating that the return of income was filed under Section 139(4) of the Act and provisions of Section