← All Phrases

“Section 139(4)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(4)(c)4 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(4)(c) is CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (251 ITR 9), cited in 179 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(4)(c)

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal
251 ITR 9 · 2001 · Supreme Court
179
citing judgments

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not automatically leviable merely because a higher income is declared, even after a search or in a voluntarily revised return. The initial burden to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies with the Revenue.

Katira Constructions Limited v. Union of India and Others
352 ITR 513 · 2013 · High Court
70
citing judgments

The Gujarat High Court holds that the explanation to Section 80-IA(4) of the Income-tax Act, regarding works contracts for infrastructure facilities, is clarificatory and explanatory in nature, not an amendment with retrospective effect. Its vires are upheld as it does not levy tax retrospectively.

Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
118 ITR 326 · 1979 · Supreme Court
65
citing judgments

There is no legal presumption that every person knows the law, and the maxim 'ignorantia juris non excusat' does not imply universal legal awareness. This principle is applied when evaluating whether a taxpayer's genuine belief or ignorance of law impacts their liability for penalties or constitutes reasonable cause.

CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni
291 ITR 172 · 2007 · High Court
63
citing judgments

An admission made in a statement during search proceedings under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act is not considered conclusive proof. Such admissions require corroboration by other independent incriminating material for making additions to income.

Pr. CIT v. Sandeep Chandak
405 ITR 648 · 2018 · High Court
58
citing judgments

A mere technical defect or incorrect provision mentioned in the caption of a penalty notice issued under Section 271AAB does not vitiate the penalty proceedings if the body of the notice makes the intention clear and the assessee understood the charge.

Prasanna Dugar v. CIT
70 Taxmann.com 175 · 2016 · Supreme Court
49
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.

Patel Engg. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT Central
94 ITD 411 · 2005 · ITAT
21
citing judgments

For availing deduction under section 80-IA, the 'infrastructure facility' does not necessarily need to be owned by the assessee. The assessee was held to be a developer, eligible for deduction under section 80-IA(4).

PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar
111 Taxmann.com 256 · 2019 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied under Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) for income declared in a return filed under section 153C, as Explanation 5A is confined to the searched person and not to persons covered under section 153C. This applies even if no addition is made by the AO to the voluntarily declared income.

Judgments citing Section 139(4)(c)

Section 139(4)(c) — 4 case laws | BharatTax