“Section 271(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)8,984 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(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 271(1)(c)

Shri Becharbhai Dharamshibhai Vasoya, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 125/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mehta, AR

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

ITA No. 125/Rjt/2025 A.Y 11-12 Becharbhai D Vasoya orreEr aiteia after, rermle arate, werple | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Kamlesh Kumar Verma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Kanpur

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

ITA 91/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

I.T.A. No.91/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2016-17 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

properly consider the facts and submissions made during the course of proceedings. Ground No. 4 challenges the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Having considered the record, we find that both the assessment order and the appellate order are reasoned and speak

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

Aristro Fincorp Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 364/KOL/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.364/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aristro Fincorp Pvt. Ltd………………………………………...….……….Appellant 21, Parsee Church Street, Opp. 18 Ezra Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aaecs0680H] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2014 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,51,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act As The Information Received From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai Under Project Falcon Regarding Coordinated & Premediated Trading On The Bombay Stock Exchange By Engaging In Reversal Trades In Illiquid Stock Options Resulting In Non-Genuine Business Loss/Gains To The Beneficiary Assessees & That The Present Assessee Is A Party To Such Manipulation. From The Data Made Available Under Project Falcon On The

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy

Dilip Tahlani & Sons HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 26(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.354/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dilip Tahlani & Sons Huf……………………………………...….……….Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aafhd1429P] Vs. Ito, Ward-26(2), Kolkata.………….....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agrawal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 81 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1905/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A

refer to the previous return filed u/s 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second proviso ... seen with reference to the return that it is filed by the assessee. Thus, for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A

Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1904/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A

Usha Marazban Pithawalla, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Navi Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2177/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

Bhan Bai, Bhilai, Durg vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Bhan Bai H. No.257, Risali Basti, Newai Mill Para, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Ayrpb7895B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 271(1)(c)

petition is allowed. Consequential proceedings are also set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the notice dated 6th January, 2010 regarding the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed ... petition is allowed. Consequential proceedings are also set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the notice dated 6th January, 2010 regarding the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed

M/S G.D. Tambi & Sons, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 177/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 24

claim is not found to be bonafule, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act If we take the view that a cloim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation

M/S G.D. Tambi & Sons, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 176/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 24

Sukhmani Society for Citizen Services, Patiala vs. ITO Ward 4, Patiala

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 250/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Aroma Arora (Advocate) and Shri RiteshFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE

Kakoli Ganguly, Legal Heir of Haradhan Halder, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.314/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kakoli Ganguly, Legal Heir Of Haradhan Halder.…………… ….……….Appellant 33, Banamanli Naskar Road, Kolkata – 700060. [Pan: Adypg8773F] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata……………....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Gaurav Mathur, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 20, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 25.11.2024 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. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Such Delay Explaining Reasons For The Delay. We, After Perusing The Petition Made In The Application, Satisfy That There Were Bona Fide & Sufficient Reasons For Such Delay. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay & Admit This Appeal For Adjudication.

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2607/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2606/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2605/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2604/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1) Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Radheshyam Agarwala, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assesse are dismissed

ITA 2603/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 153CSection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Murarilal Murarka, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-61(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 636/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री जॉजज