“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)

Shubh Karan Baid., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

withdrew its claim just in order to avoid litigation with Department. But when the Department intended toimpose a penalty upon the assessee under section 271(1)(c), the assessee has contested the issue in the penalty proceeding. The ld. Assessing Officer instead of entertaining the arguments on merit summarily rejected ... that it withdrew its claim. Nowhere, it has been demonstrated that the claim of the assessee was false or bogus. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) provides that, if the assessee fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the ld. Assessing Officer

Aa 294 Arulvadi Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 491/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 489, 490 & 491/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aa 294 Arulvadi Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Op Credit Vs. Ward 2(1), Society Ltd., Erode. Arulvadi, Sathyamangalam, Erode – 638 461. Pan: Aacaa 1572C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

Aa 294 Arulvadi Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 490/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

Aa 294 Arulvadi Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 489/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

Anjappar Chettinad A/C Restaurant, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 464/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.464/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Anjappar Chettinad A/C Dcit Restaurant Central Circle-1(3) बनाम/ #7/2, J.P.Towers, Chennai Nungambakkam High Road, Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifa-0590-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkata Raman (Cas)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: S/Shri V.Padmanabhan & Venkata RamanFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)

refer to the previous return filed u/s 139 of the Act. For all purposes, including for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the return that has to be looked at is the one filed under Section 153A. In fact, the second proviso ... seen with reference to the return that it is filed by the assessee. Thus, for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A

Rita Hemchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO. Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ito. Int Tax Ward Rita Hemchand Gandhi 2(3)(1) Ayodhya Apartments, 17Th Floor, Air India Flat No.101, Ramgali, Vs. Building, Kandivali (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akepg6370P

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 195Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

levied by The Income Tax Rita Hemchand Gandhi; A.Y. 2013-14 Officer International Taxation Ward 2 (3) (1), Mumbai (the learned AO) under section 271 (1) ( c) of The Income Tax Act 1961[ The Act] of Rs. 150,606/- levied by the penalty order dated 27/9/2022 was confirmed. 02. Assessee ... passed on 27/3/2022 at the total income of the assessee at ₹ 6,539,254/–. The learned assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271 (1) (C) for concealment of income of ₹ 6,539,254 as the assessee offered the income for taxation only after issue of notice under section

DCIT CC-4(3), Mumbai vs. Cascade Holdings Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1622/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year :2013-14 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Dr.P.Daniel, Spl. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Dharmesh Shah &

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai vs. Cascade Holdings Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1620/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year :2013-14 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Dr.P.Daniel, Spl. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Dharmesh Shah &

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Tata International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

ITA 2232/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth J., Ld. DR

Section 14Section 144CSection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 57

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 161/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 160 & 161/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs Kolkata Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcb2610B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R & Saurav Gupta, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Instant Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”). Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Ita No. 161/Kol/2023, Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 28/11/2023, Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act, For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds In Both These Appeals, But The Effective Issue Raised In Ita No. 161/Kol/2024 Is Against The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act For Unexplained Share Capital Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) & In Ita No. 160/Kol/2024 Is Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE

Balaka Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 160/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Saurav Gupta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 541/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Maa Chintpoorni Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 540/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Himadri Mukhopadhyay, Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Rajesh Jugraj Madhani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 314/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jay Thakkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Vijaykumar Shrikant Ghatge, Nashik Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), India

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

ITA 4642/MUM/2023[A.Y. 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vijakumar Shrikant Ghatge Commissioner Of Income Tax Niramay, Matoshri Nagar, (Appeals) Tidke Colony, Nashik Training School, National Faceless Appeal Centre Vs. Nashik-422 007 (Nfac) North Block, Delhi-110 001

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon

Section 144Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4543/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

Income Tax Act 1961. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld AO erred in invoking Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Inco me Tax Act 1961. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in business of jewellery

Mitesh Rameshbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 4451/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

Amc Research Group Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 299/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Amc Research Group Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 108, New Friends Colony, Ward-1(1), Taimur Nagar, New Delhi-110065. New Delhi. Pan-Aabca0035B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sunil Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2012

Gautam Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 12, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3909/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Bhatnagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 2Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

assessee: "1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the imposition of penalty of Rs. 62,271/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide its order dated 28.02.2018. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law in confirming ... Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory: 359 ITR 565 held that notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where

Gautam Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 12, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3908/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Bhatnagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 2Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A