“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)

Ms. Genpact India, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

ITA 4060/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 143(3)

profits and taxed as other income. Since, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately." ) 6.4 The ld. CIT(A) by following the orders passed by his predecessors pointed out that 5% of cost

Gopallal Bherubhai Kumavat, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

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

given by the appellant can Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 2 of 3 never tantamount to concealment of income under the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty so levied of Rs.3,96,596/- invoking the provision ... Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is completely illegal and unjustifiable and the same be deleted in the interest of justice. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the complete details and records justifying that the Appellant has not concealed any particulars

Shri Mahendrakumar H. Adhvaryu, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1814/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Mahendrakumar H. Adhvaryu, Income Tax Officer, A-8, Classic Palace, Talav Gate, Ward-3(3)(3), Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad Pan : Aezpa 8877 Q अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Anurag Chandra, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Cit(A)” For Short] Dated 28.08.2019, Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Raised Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Giving A Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Appellant Which Is In Violation Of The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Stepping Into The Shoes Of The Appellant To Confirm The Additions. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Addition Of Cash In Hand Of Rs.62,76,216/- U/S 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Anurag Chandra, Sr DR

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

M/S. Atul Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms for statistical purpose

ITA 446/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Tp)A No.446/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Atul Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul House Vs Ahmedabad. Gi Patel Marg Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Dr.Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. American Express India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2577/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumaramerican Express (India) Private Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (1), Metropolitan Saket, New Delhi. 7Th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaaca8163F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle 1(1) Vs American Express (India) Private Room No.392, C.R. Building, Ltd., I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 Metropolitan Saket, 7Th Floor, Office Block, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR

M/S. American Express (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1973/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR

Nav Vidya Niketan Shikshan Sanstha, Amravati vs. ITO Ward-2 Exemp Nagpur, Nagpur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 392/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No

Dinesh International Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3808/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL

Dinesh International Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-7(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3807/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL

Dinesh International Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3806/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Sanjay Prataprai Mehta, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 897/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri

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

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), passed for Assessment Year 2014-15 deleting the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case ... allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.” 5. Meanwhile, the Ld. Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the assessee, which later came to be deleted by Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that since the issue

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Karad Satara vs. The Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Karad Satara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 919/PUN/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

penalty levied by the AO and concluding that the case is not fit for imposition of penalty either under the main part of section 271(1)(c) or under the deeming provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Whether on the facts ... failed to prove that this is a fit case for imposition of penalty either under the main part of section 271(1) C of the Act or under the deeming provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1) C of the Act . Considering the above discussion and respectfully following judicial

Tribhuvan Sharda, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (2), Jaipur

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

ITA 199/JPR/2024[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 148Section 151Section 69

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt

Goldman Sachs Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 298/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 144C(10)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

1)(c) of the Act 7.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act for the above adjustments. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

ITA 4155/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 250Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4153/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blesir Ratan Tata Trust V. Dcit (Exemption)-2(1) Bombay House, 24 Mtnl Tele Building, Cumballa Hills Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaats1013P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Assessee Represented By : Shri Atul T. Suraiya & Ms. Bhavika Jain Department Represented By : Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Sh. Moti Singh Jodha, Khatipura Road, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Jaipur

ITA 258/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

section 147 read with section 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were sought to be initiated separately, for concealment of particulars of income. Matter pertains to purchase of land by the assessee. Land

Chandrasekhar Nudurumati, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

property in the case of assessee in these three assessment years. Consequently, the ld. AO after completion of the assessment invoked provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at 100% tax to be evaded due to furnishing

Chandrasekhar Nudurumati, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

Chandrasekhar Nudurumati, Telangana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 271(1)(c)