“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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jaipur Telecom Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 31/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble High Court Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of Hon’Ble Itat & The Matter Is Subjudice?”

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

assessment year 2014-15. The said order of the ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC arises as against the order dated 10.12.2021 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [ here in after referred as ld. AO ]. 2 ACIT vs. Jaipur Telecom Private ... penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income. As per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c), minimum penalty leviable is 100 per cent of the tax sought to be evaded and the maximum penalty leviable is 300 per cent

Madhav Infra Projects Ltd (Erstwhile Aashka Constructions P. Ltd.), Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 88/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Madhav Infra Projects Ltd., Dcit, (Erstwhile Aashka Circle-1(1)(1), Constructions Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad 4, Madhav House, Nr. Panchratna Building, Subhanpura, Baroda, Gujarat Pan : Aadcm 1157 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024/26.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.06.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 23.12.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts Confirming Action Of Ao Passing An Ex- Parte Order On An Entity That Ceased To Exist Pursuant To Order Of Amalgamation Passed By Hon'Ble High Court. The Order Passed On Non-Entity Is A Nullity & Void Ab Initio That Ought To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL

Shree Mallikarjun Trad Invest Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

ITA No.258/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Shri Vikram Shantilal Patel, Baroda vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Baroda

In the result, Ground No. 5 of the Department’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 289/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial

The ITO, Ward-2(6), Baroda vs. Shri Vikram Shantilal Patel, Baroda

In the result, Ground No. 5 of the Department’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1790/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial

Anuradha Ashok Satbhai, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 482/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Manish SomaniFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

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

Mr. Anil Ananda Pokharnikar, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(3), Pune

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

ITA 356/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MunotFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 144Section 147Section 2Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case and the correct legal position in its proper perspective, and without satisfaction of the pre-conditions in section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred both on facts and in law, in passing an ex-parte adverse appeal order

Mr. Anil Ananda Pokharnikar, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(3), Pune

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

ITA 355/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MunotFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 68Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

The Immaculate Heart of Mary'S Society, Madurai vs. ITO Exemptions, Madurai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 970/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, The Immaculate Heart Of V. Exemptions Ward, Mary’S Society, Madurai. Arul Malar Convent, No.1, K.K. Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. [Pan:Aaatt-7531-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

The Immaculate Heart of Mary'S Society, Madurai vs. ITO Exemptions, Madurai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 969/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

The Immaculate Heart of Mary'S Society, Madurai vs. ITO Exemptions, Madurai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 968/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Smt. Bugli Devi, Tehsil Amer, Jhotwara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 278/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) (Th. V.C.)

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

/NFAC"] for the assessment year 2012-13, which in turn arise from the penalty order dated 02.02.2022 passed under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “Act”) by the ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur. 2 Smt. Bugli Devi vs. ITO 2. The assessee

Ritu Multitrade Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 938/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessing Officer had erred in initiating the penalty proceeding by issuing the impugned show cause notice dated 30.11.2017 under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c)- without striking off the irrelevant/in-applicable limb; thereby issuing a defective notice which is bad in the eyes of law as held ... assessee is specific, the same could not be maintained. Thus, on this sole technical defect in the notice issued u/s. 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty so imposed is ought to be deleted. 6. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on another decision

Aasha Hement Ranawat, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward, 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed “in limine, with liberty as granted”

ITA 1480/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraaasha Hemant Ranawat Vs. Ito, Ward 19(1)(1) 1801, 18Th Floor, The Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Majestic, Khed Galli, X Piramal Chamber, Lane, Annasaheb Patil Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai- Marg, Prabhadevi, 400012 Mumbai- 400025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Prashant Barate, Sr-DR

Section 10(38)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT

Anil Assudomal Manghnani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1328/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Advocate/Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings on the limb of concealment of income and subsequently issued the notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The assessee challenged the said addition of Rs.6,34,400/- before the Ld. Commissioner by filing first appeal. However

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1026/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

For Respondent: “i. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 153Section 250Section 9

circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Learned AO to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for additions made in the assessment/re-assessment order. The above grounds of objections are all independent and without prejudice to one another

DCIT It 3.1.1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1025/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 9

circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Learned AO to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for additions made in the assessment/re-assessment order. 4. The above grounds of objections are all independent and without prejudice

DCIT It 3.1.1, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1024/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 9

circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Learned AO to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for additions made in the assessment/re-assessment order. 4. The above grounds of objections are all independent and without prejudice

DCIT It 3.1.1, Mumbai vs. Jefferies Llc, Mumbai

ITA 1023/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024

For Respondent: “i. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in the law, the

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 153Section 250Section 9

circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Learned AO to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for additions made in the assessment/re-assessment order. 4. The above grounds of objections are all independent and without prejudice

Ravi Nirman Nigam Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle -13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4141/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 269SSection 270Section 271DSection 271E

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