← All Phrases

“Section 274(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 274Section 274(1)58 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 274(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 274(1)

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 Section 274(1)

Mukesh Khurana, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 4710/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271ASection 274

issuance of a valid notice u/s 274 for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAB of the Act. Further, the provision of section 274(1) stipulates that "No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-10, Chennai vs. Sj Suryah, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 594/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Whether there is a legal obligation u/s 271 or u/s 274 of the Act to issue a notice? 1. The language use of Section 274(1) is reproduced as under: "No order imposing penalty under this chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given

Shri.S.J.Suryah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 806/CHNY/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Whether there is a legal obligation u/s 271 or u/s 274 of the Act to issue a notice? 1. The language use of Section 274(1) is reproduced as under: "No order imposing penalty under this chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given

Orange City Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd., Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Nagpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 019/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Orange City Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd. Anand Plaza-2, Hudkeshwar Road, Raja Peth Bus Stop, Nagpur-440034. Pan: Aaaao2933P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Nagpur. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1047262637(1) Dt. 14/11/2022 Of The National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Confirmed The Order Levying Penalty Passed U/S 270A Of The Act By The National Faceless Assessment Centre [‘Neac’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 246A(1)(aa)Section 250Section 270ASection 274(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR (Through Virtual hearing from ITAT, Pune) BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI S

Mrs. Beant Kaur Juneja, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Nagpur

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 18/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 018/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Beantkaur Avtarsingh Juneja Hp Petrol Pump, Dosar Bhavan, C. A. Road, Nagpur-440002. Pan: Aflpj2956E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 24Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250Section 253(1)(a)Section 271BSection 273BSection 274(1)Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR (Through Virtual hearing from ITAT, Pune) BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI S

M/S.Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

assessee must be told distinctly whether he has held guilty of having concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Section 274(1) provides for reasonable opportunity to be given to the assessee so that he can meet the charge. Therefore, from the above, it is very

M/S Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

assessee must be told distinctly whether he has held guilty of having concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Section 274(1) provides for reasonable opportunity to be given to the assessee so that he can meet the charge. Therefore, from the above, it is very

Sree Navaladian Finance, Namakkal vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1157/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

does not mandate an Assessing Officer to issue any notice leave alone a statutory notice.. The language use of Section 274(1) is reproduced as under: "No order imposing penalty under this chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1156/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

does not mandate an Assessing Officer to issue any notice leave alone a statutory notice.. The language use of Section 274(1) is reproduced as under: "No order imposing penalty under this chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity

Sreenavaladian Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Centralcircle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1155/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

does not mandate an Assessing Officer to issue any notice leave alone a statutory notice.. The language use of Section 274(1) is reproduced as under: "No order imposing penalty under this chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Namakkal vs. DCIT, Cent Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1154/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

does not mandate an Assessing Officer to issue any notice leave alone a statutory notice.. The language use of Section 274(1) is reproduced as under: "No order imposing penalty under this chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity

Summit Online Trade Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Cetral Circle 1 (3), Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 648/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Feb 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar,(JCIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार

Vikas Sharma, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 256/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 256/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vikas Sharma Quarter No.6-A, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 006 Pan : Ddcps1720P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Smt. Dipalben Manish Patel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 215/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 215/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Dipalben Manish Patel 4-502, Near Maharashtra Mandal, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Alupp3271B

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Ashok Kumar Singh, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 150/RPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 150/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Singh P-10, Rishab Green City, Pulgaon, Durg-491 001 (C.G) Pan : Bcfps1394K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Prashant Manohar Bhagwat, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 86/RPR/2023[2014-5]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 86/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prashant Manohar Bhagwat H. No.11, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Ahfpb6105K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Khomram Chandrawanshi (HUF), Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 165/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 165/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Khomram Chandrawanshi (Huf) House No.18, Ring Road Chowk, Krishnasakha Society, Rohinipuram, Raipur-492 001 (C.G) Pan : Aakhk2082E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 4

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 42/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 41/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

ITA 40/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH