“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)

Shiv Shraddha Developer, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle -3 Kalyan, Kalyan

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

ITA 944/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.944/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA

Nilesh Raghavji Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off and partly

ITA 819/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ

Nitinkumar Mulchand Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-24(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 4824/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhannitinkumar Mulchand Shah Vs. Ito-24(3)(2), Ward No. Shop No. 6, V.R. Posha Chawl, 24(3) (1), Jijamata Road, Pump House, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai Andheri (East), Mumbai – – 400012. 400093. Pan: Aafps7328J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 141Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ

Nallasamy Mohanraj, Erode vs. ITO, Wrd-2(3), Erode

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

ITA 112/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 112/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Nallasamy Mohanraj, The Income Tax Officer, 23, Bhajan Street, Nadupalayam, Vs. Ward 2(3), Vellottamparappu Post Office, Erode. Erode – 638 154. Pan: Aozpm 4517R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

conclusion or he is satisfied that this is a fit case for levy of penalty for concealment of income in term of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time

Prem Devi Baid, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 6, Jaipur

15. As a result, we allow this appeal for statistical purposes, and set aside the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) dismissing the appeal relating to the AY 2016-17

ITA 146/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Learned Cit(Appeal) By Way Of Appeal Presented On 7.1.2019. That Is How, The Assessment Order Was Challenged.

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena (Adl.CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

income at Rs. 23,01,400/-, while making additions under section 69A and 57 of the Act. At the same time, proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately on the ground that she had furnished inaccurate particulars as regards her income. Assessee challenges the Assessment

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1417/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty levied is excessive.” 3. The solitary dispute raised by the assessee in all these appeals pertains to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is engaged in the business ... assessee was assessed at Rs.1,43,51,370. 5. Subsequently, the penalty order dated 30/03/2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein a penalty of Rs.80,85,480, was levied. In the further appeal against the penalty order, the learned

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1416/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years 2010-

ITA 1415/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Beig

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Mohamed Imran Mohamed Siddique Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2900/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271F

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

DCIT, Circle- 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. Genpact Services Llc, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 899/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT-DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

well aware of true nature of the expenditure.” 3. In the entire grounds taken up by the Revenue, there was no mention of “Section 271(1)(c)” of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. At the outset, the ld. AR brought to our attention, the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s ... 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

M/S Happy Steel Private Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT CC-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 398/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271A

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

Pashankar Auto Works Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(5), Pune

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

ITA 420/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.420/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Pashankar Auto Works Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-4(5), S.No.45/1, Dehu Road, Pune Katraj-Bypass, Baner, Pune 411 015, Maharashtra Pan : Aaecp8466C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 194BSection 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA

Rupmata Zilla Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd., Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Latur

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

ITA 256/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.256/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rupmata Zilla Nagari Sahakari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Latur. Pathsanstha Ltd., Samarth Nagar, Osmanabad, Osmanabad- 413501. Pan : Aajfr0354D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. C1T(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Of Appeal In As Much As The Appellant Received The Impugned Order Dated 29/03/2022 Only On 23/08/2022. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Assessing Officer Erred In Assessing The Total Income At Rs.3,79,38,930/-

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

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

DCIT, CC-4(2), Kolkata vs. Tharur Bhaskaran, Kolkata

In the result the appeal is partly allowed”

ITA 590/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 250

case of Nalini Bhaskaran. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the ITA Nos. 580 to 590/KOL/2023 Tharur Bhaskaran penalty levied upon her under section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the quantum additions stand deleted because it was made only on protective basis. Sub-clause (iii) of section 271 ... 1)(c) provides a mechanism to compute the penalty leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This clause reads as under:- “Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271.(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner