← All Phrases

“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)

Star Drugs & Research Labs Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 3177/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3176 & 3177/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Star Drugs & Research Labs Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, 16C/16D/16E/16F, Circle-1(1) Star Shoping Complex, Salem. Old Krishnagiri Road, Hosur-635 109. Pan: Aaecs-3826-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.Richa Bakiwala & Mr.P.Hemasundara Rao, Advocates ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr.A.Sasikumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) - Nfac Both Dated 09.01.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013- 14. Ita No.3176 & 3177//Chny/2024 2. There Is A Delay Of 256 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Of The Director Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reason Stated For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Assessee Had Engaged New Tax Consultant & There Was No Proper Communication Between The Present & Old Consultants & Due To Lack Of Co-Ordination & Oversight, Necessary Compliance Could Not Be Made Within The Prescribed Time Limit. It Was Further Submitted In The Affidavit That Deponent’S Brother, Who Was Also A Director In The Assessee Company Was Suffering From Severe Illness During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings & He Unfortunately Expired In September, 2024 After Prolonged Illness.

For Appellant: Ms.Richa Bakiwala &For Respondent: Mr.A.Sasikumar,CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"न IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Star Drugs & Research Labs Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 3176/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3176 & 3177/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Star Drugs & Research Labs Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, 16C/16D/16E/16F, Circle-1(1) Star Shoping Complex, Salem. Old Krishnagiri Road, Hosur-635 109. Pan: Aaecs-3826-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.Richa Bakiwala & Mr.P.Hemasundara Rao, Advocates ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr.A.Sasikumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) - Nfac Both Dated 09.01.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013- 14. Ita No.3176 & 3177//Chny/2024 2. There Is A Delay Of 256 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavit Of The Director Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reason Stated For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Assessee Had Engaged New Tax Consultant & There Was No Proper Communication Between The Present & Old Consultants & Due To Lack Of Co-Ordination & Oversight, Necessary Compliance Could Not Be Made Within The Prescribed Time Limit. It Was Further Submitted In The Affidavit That Deponent’S Brother, Who Was Also A Director In The Assessee Company Was Suffering From Severe Illness During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings & He Unfortunately Expired In September, 2024 After Prolonged Illness.

For Appellant: Ms.Richa Bakiwala &For Respondent: Mr.A.Sasikumar,CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"न IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज