← 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)

ITO-28(2)(1), Vashi vs. Pankaj Sabharwal, Sanpada

The appeals stand dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3868/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

Rockwell Tradevin Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1501/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1501/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rockwell Tradevin Pvt. Ltd...…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant 187, Rabindra Sarini, 2Nd Floor, Room No.73, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aafcr1641C] Vs. Ito, Ward-13(3), Kolkata.......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 24, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.06.2024 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. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeals: “Ground 1: That The Ld. Ao Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Passing The Order Appealed Against In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Order Was At All Liable To Be Passed & The Lad. Cita) Erred In Confirming The Same. Ground 2: That The Ld. Ao Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,99,00,000/- U/S. 68 In Respect Of Share Capital Raised During The Year By Issuing 39,800 Equity Shares @ Of Rs.500/, Including Share Premium Of Rs.490/- Per Share, In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Addition Was At All Called For & The Ld. Cita) Erred In Confirming The Same.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri

Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Vijaypura

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1282/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V. Mudrabettu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, V., Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

Sankarlingam Sankar Through His Legal Heir Ganesh Shankar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

ITA 707/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajgopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Gajendra Golcha, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. KAVITHA RAJGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

ITO-22(1)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Gehrilal Rooplal Paliwal, Andheri East

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

ITA 3614/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM, & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM I.T.A

Shashikant Krishna Shetty, Kalyan vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Kalyan

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

ITA 1879/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh VyasFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT, DR
Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

Mansi Devang Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(20(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 1868/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 144Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ KUMAR

M/S. Amizara Exports Private Limited, Palanpur vs. The ACIT, Banaskantha Circle Present Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 384/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh K Das, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Shri Gargi Buildcon Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the Appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to cost

ITA 992/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Sri. Sumeru Housing Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1471/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Nagarajan, Director of the CompanyFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

unreasonable", and ultimately taxing and levying penalty equal to the tax, Sri Sumeru Housing Private Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 7 under section 271(1)(c) merely based on assumptions and presumptions, ignoring the brought forward losses of the appellant. 4. That, in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant

Vsr Infratech Private Limited, Vasant Vihar Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, New Delhi

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

ITA 3153/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 43B

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions made in the assessment order. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Varsity Education Management Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 208/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 208/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Varsity Education Income Tax, Central Circle Management (P) Ltd 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcv6100E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT(DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

appellant was not sustainable in law, but same cannot be considered as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Tejas Transcom (P) Ltd., Burdwan West vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(2), Durgapur

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

ITA 1387/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Park Trust, Tirupur vs. DCIT Exemptions, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1809/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(c)Section 13(3)(cc)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि

Manjunath B, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramnagar

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

ITA 1284/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Vijay M. Mistry Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. NFAC (Delhi) AO Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1105/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80I

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 1105/Ahd/2024

Saroj Gupta, Ujjain vs. ITO NFAC, Local Jurisdictional Office Ujjain

ITA 61/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisaroj Gupta, W/O Chandrabhan Gupta, 14, Chandra Bhawan, Fawwara Chowk, Ujjain (Appellant/Assessee) Ito, (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Acapg0409K Assessee By Shri Sharad Jain, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2024 आदेश/Order Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling Aggrieved By Appeal-Order Dated 30.11.2023 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of Penalty-Order Dated 05.01.2022 Passed By Learned Nfac, Delhi [“Ao”] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] For Assessment- Year [“Ay”] 2014-15, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal.

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

order passed by AO: (i) Firstly, our attention is drawn to the show-notice dated 22.12.2019 issued by AO u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), placed at Page 4 of Paper- Book. Referring to same, Ld. AR showed that the AO has mentioned as under: “Whereas ... penalty- proceeding. According to Ld. AR, the notice issued by AO is very much vague in as much it contains stereotype language of section 271(1)(c). The Ld. AR contended that by mentioning that the assessee has “concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income

Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

ITA 681/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 253(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Aadhunik Infrastructure Development Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 439/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

ACIT, Amravati Circle, Amravati vs. Chandrapur Dist Central Co-Op Bank Ltd, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

that we need to be addressed here is, whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer for ` 21.40 crore. 4. The assessee is a District Central Co–operative Bank, whose share capital ... from the documents submitted by the assessee along with the return of income. Consequent upon such addition, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for ` 21.40 crore. The assessee being aggrieved with the penalty order, filed appeal before the first appellate authority