← 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)

Mirza Imran Baig, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 13(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1177/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1177/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mirza Imran Baig Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-13(1) [Pan : Apopb7772D] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms.Reema Yadav, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 10/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.07.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Salaried Employee, Having Income Below The Taxable Limits, Sold A Property Along With His Mother & Sisters For A Consideration Of Rs.1,31,10,000/- & Invested The Resulting Capital Gains For Acquiring A Residential House At Hakimpet, Hyderabad For A 2 Consideration Of Rs.26,48,000/-. Notices U/S 142(1) & 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee, But The Assessee Neither Appeared Nor Filed Complete Details Before The Assessing Officer. Therefore, The Learned Assessing Officer Passed Best Judgement Assessment, Determining The Long Term Capital Gains At Rs.13,04,050/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: : Ms.Reema Yadav, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Mangat Ram, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 481/CHANDI/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. Nos. 480 & 481/Chd/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 बनाम Mangat Ram Vpo Jaroda, Income Tax Officer Teh. Jagadhari, Ward 5, Yamunanagar Yamunanagar, Haryana 135003 "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Bqlpr 0570C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent (Virtual Hearing) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, C.A. राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. D.R. सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2024 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2024 आदेश/Order Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 29.02.2024 & 20.09.2023 Respectively For The Assessment Year: 2007-08. Ita No. 480/Chd/2024 Is Relating To The Quantum Additions, Whereas, Ita No. 481/Chd/2024 Is Relating To The

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE

Mangat Ram, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 480/CHANDI/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. Nos. 480 & 481/Chd/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 बनाम Mangat Ram Vpo Jaroda, Income Tax Officer Teh. Jagadhari, Ward 5, Yamunanagar Yamunanagar, Haryana 135003 "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Bqlpr 0570C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent (Virtual Hearing) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, C.A. राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. D.R. सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2024 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2024 आदेश/Order Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 29.02.2024 & 20.09.2023 Respectively For The Assessment Year: 2007-08. Ita No. 480/Chd/2024 Is Relating To The Quantum Additions, Whereas, Ita No. 481/Chd/2024 Is Relating To The

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘SMC’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE