← 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)

Vijay Bhagchand Bafna, Shirpur vs. DCIT, Circle, Dhule

ITA 181/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH

Mustafa Ali, Neemuch vs. ITO, Neemuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Indore30 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimustafa Ali Ito (Through Aun Ali Otiawala Neemuch General Power Of Attorney Hlder) Vs. Neemuch (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Angpa4533K Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2024

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

order dated 17.01.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), (National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi arising from penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y.2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable ... erred in sustaining the penalty order under ITANo.214/Ind/2024 Mustafa Ali section 271(1)(c) which is contrary to the material on records and provisions of the Act, unjust and bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining

Lalit Kumar Mohanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3026/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalito, Ward 20(2)(4) Lalitkumarmohanlaljain, Vs. Piramal Chambers, 1401/C, Lalbaug, Gundechha Garden, Mumbai-400012. Dattaram Khamkarmarg, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai -400012. Pan/Gir No. Aabpj0792M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Morgan Stanley India Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 4(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2448/MUM/2024[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2012-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Lala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)

Ground No.2) (iii) Addition of interest income already offered in subsequent year – (Ground No.3) (iv) Initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act – (Ground No.4) Morgan Stanley India Company Ltd. 2. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing financial services including providing institutional

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1812/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

held as under: “We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. At the outset, we must observe that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) or the Act was imposed on the addition or 38,80,265/- representing the quantum of alleged non-genuine purchases. However, the Tribunal ... order referred to above, has restricted the addition to 12.5% of the disputed purchases. Therefore, to that extent, the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act has to be revised. Be that as it may, undisputedly, on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department

Mildred Ponnoth, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (International Tax)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1802/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mrs

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

held as under: “We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. At the outset, we must observe that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) or the Act was imposed on the addition or 38,80,265/- representing the quantum of alleged non-genuine purchases. However, the Tribunal ... order referred to above, has restricted the addition to 12.5% of the disputed purchases. Therefore, to that extent, the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act has to be revised. Be that as it may, undisputedly, on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1766/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

held as under: “We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. At the outset, we must observe that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) or the Act was imposed on the addition or 38,80,265/- representing the quantum of alleged non-genuine purchases. However, the Tribunal ... order referred to above, has restricted the addition to 12.5% of the disputed purchases. Therefore, to that extent, the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act has to be revised. Be that as it may, undisputedly, on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department

Maaran Multitrading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional Or Joint Or Deputy Or Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Or Income-Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1723/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Maaran Multitrading Addl/Joint/Deputy/Acit Private Limited /Ito, Ward-7(2)(1), Mumbai. 5A Jindal Mansion, Dr. G. Vs. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai- 400026. Pan: Aahcm 1425 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Vinita Shah Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

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

The Jt.CIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 267/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Revenue as against the appellate order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad restricting the Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.A No. 267/Ahd/2020

Bayjabaishamrao Nikam, Nashik vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Nashik

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

ITA 742/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.742/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bayjabai Shamrao Nikam, Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Nashik. Ghar No.844, Near Ramsetu Bridge, Gangaghat, Murlidhar Koat, Nikam Wada, Panchwati, Nashik- 422003 Pan : Amypn0716G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Smt. Umashankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.07.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.22,00,000 Made By The A.O. In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 By Treating Entire Cash Deposits Made During The Year Under Consideration As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating That The Said Addition Is Not Justified On Facts & In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Umashankar Prasad
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

Income Tax Officer, Ward -4, Amravati vs. Shri Mahesh Shankar Sorate, Daryapur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 250/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269TSection 271E

satisfaction recorded regarding penalty proceeding under section 271E though in that order the AO wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus in so far as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore, no such penalty could

Nunepally Suresh, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 664/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Joshi, C.A. appeared for Shri M. ChandramoleswaraFor Respondent: Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The appellate order passed by the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) against the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) is erroneous and bad both on facts and in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... NFAC/CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act on the basis of the invalid assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act by the Assessing Officer. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Nunepally Suresh, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 663/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Joshi, C.A. appeared for Shri M. ChandramoleswaraFor Respondent: Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The appellate order passed by the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) against the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) is erroneous and bad both on facts and in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... NFAC/CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act on the basis of the invalid assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act by the Assessing Officer. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S Venkateswar Medicare Pvt. Ltd., ITO, Ward-2(1) vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1417/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

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 Venkateswar Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1416/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

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

Ikon Overseas Private Limited, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(5), Bhopal

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

ITA 54/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 06.10.2023 & 24.11.2023 arising from assessment order passed u/s 144 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for A.Y.2013-14. ITANo.53 & 54/Ind/2024 Ikon Overseas Private Ltd. 2. There is a delay of 41 days in quantum appeal filed by the assessee

Ikon Overseas Private Limited, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(5), Bhopal

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

ITA 53/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 06.10.2023 & 24.11.2023 arising from assessment order passed u/s 144 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for A.Y.2013-14. ITANo.53 & 54/Ind/2024 Ikon Overseas Private Ltd. 2. There is a delay of 41 days in quantum appeal filed by the assessee

Kalu Jat, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer

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

ITA 747/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon,Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench On 07.12.2023 Against The Ex-Parte Order Passed By Ld. Cit(Appeals) Nfac, New Delhi, Order Dated 07.09.2023. The Appeal No. Is Ita No. 747/Jpr/2023. 2. The Present Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 31 Days. 3. That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Due To Mistake Of Earlier Local Counsel Of Appellant, As He Did Not Filed The Appeal Well Within The Specified Time. 4. Then, On 06.12.2023, Appellant Engaged A New Counsel Of Jaipur, Ca Raghuveer Singh Poonia & On The Very Next Day The New Counsel Filed The Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench. 5. Therefore, The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Due To Mistake Of Earlier Counsel Of Appellant, Which Can Be Treated As Reasonable Cause & Bonafide Mistake Of Appellant In Good Faith In Filing The Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench. In View Of Above Submission Your Good Self Are Request That Kindly Consider This As Reasonable Cause To Condone The Delay & Kindly Admit The Appeal. So The Substantial Justice May Be Delivered To The Appellant." 2.2 The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appearing In This Appeals Submitted That The Delay Of 31 Days Is On Account Of Due To Mistake Of Earlier Local Counsel Of The Assessee, As He Did Not Inform The Assessee In Proper Time & Subsequently The Assessee Engaged A New Counsel On The Very Next Day & Filed The Appeal. Considering The Various Judicial Precedent Where In The Courts Has Considered That Change Of The New Counsel Is A Reasonable Reason & Has Considered The Delay. Even The Hon'Ble 3

Section 148ASection 56(2)(i)Section 69

2 ITA No. 747/JPR/2023 Sh. Kalu Jat vs. ITO 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there

M/S. Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 531/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Income for AY 2015-16, stands at Rs. 29,25,56,895/- with no differential income reported. Consequently, a penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued to the appellant on 27.12.2017. The AO concluded that the case of the assessee fell under explanation ... section 271(1)(c) of the Act, meeting all the necessary criteria specified in section 271(1)(c) to impose a penalty for the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, a penalty of ITA No.531 & 532/Bang/2024 M/s. Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore Page 4 of 36 Rs.1