← 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)

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 397/NAG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.393 & 397/Nag/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2010-11 Nav Vidya Niketan Shikshan The Income Tax Officer, Sanstha, V Ward-2 Exemption, 1, Ambapethdhabaliya S Nagpur. Niwas, Ambapeth, Amravati – 444601 Pan: Aabtn1915G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ca(Ar) Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Separate Penalty Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Both Dated 13.06.2017 For A.Y.2012-

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] under section 250 of the Act, emanating from the separate penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; both dated 13.06.2017 for A.Y.2012- ITA Nos.393 & 397/NAG/2023 Nav Vidya Niketan Shikshan Sanstha ... based on the Remand Report filed by the Assessing Officer(AO). 4.1 The present appeal is against penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on the basis addition made under section 69C of the Act for A.Y.2010-11 and A.Y.2012-13. Since the ld.CIT(A) has deleted

Nav Vidya Niketan Shikshan Sanstha, Amravati vs. ITO Ward2 Exemp, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 393/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.393 & 397/Nag/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2010-11 Nav Vidya Niketan Shikshan The Income Tax Officer, Sanstha, V Ward-2 Exemption, 1, Ambapethdhabaliya S Nagpur. Niwas, Ambapeth, Amravati – 444601 Pan: Aabtn1915G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ca(Ar) Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Separate Penalty Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Both Dated 13.06.2017 For A.Y.2012-

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] under section 250 of the Act, emanating from the separate penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; both dated 13.06.2017 for A.Y.2012- ITA Nos.393 & 397/NAG/2023 Nav Vidya Niketan Shikshan Sanstha ... based on the Remand Report filed by the Assessing Officer(AO). 4.1 The present appeal is against penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on the basis addition made under section 69C of the Act for A.Y.2010-11 and A.Y.2012-13. Since the ld.CIT(A) has deleted

Aditya Arav Dev-Cons Co Private Limited, Ramnagargarh, Dhanbad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Kali Mitra Lane Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Aditya Arav Dev-Cons Co Private Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Limited Vs Circle - 1, Kolkata Kali Mitra Lane Kolkata - 700006 [Pan : Aahca8209M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.N. Keshari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 29/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Finding Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.14,21,776/- Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Impugned Penalty Has Been Levied On The Additions Made On Estimate Basis & There Is No Specific Finding For Making The Addition That The Assessee Has Concealed Particulars Of Income Or Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri A.N. Keshari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Nakoda Realities, Indore vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Indore

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 535/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

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

Section 115BSection 132Section 68Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Nakoda Realities, Indore vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Indore

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 534/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 132Section 68Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Nakoda Realities, Indore vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Indore

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 533/IND/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

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

Section 115BSection 132Section 68Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Vinita Raheja, Indore vs. ITO-2(4), Indore

In the result, both the appeals by the assesse arising the assessment order as well as penalty order are allowed

ITA 513/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 1Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Vinita Raheja, Indore vs. ITO-2(4), Indore

In the result, both the appeals by the assesse arising the assessment order as well as penalty order are allowed

ITA 512/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 1Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

Vijay Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(2), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 485/IND/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

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

Section 271(1)(c)

made two-fold submissions: (i) Firstly, our attention is drawn to the show-notice dated 30.12.2010 issued by AO u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), placed at Page 1 of Paper- Book. Referring to same, Ld. AR showed that the AO has mentioned as under: “Whereas ... penalty- proceeding. According to Ld. AR, the notice issued by AO is very much vague in as much it contains stereotype language of section 271(1)(c). The Ld. AR contended that by mentioning that the assessee has “concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income

Vijay Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(2), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 484/IND/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

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

Section 271(1)(c)

made two-fold submissions: (i) Firstly, our attention is drawn to the show-notice dated 30.12.2010 issued by AO u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), placed at Page 1 of Paper- Book. Referring to same, Ld. AR showed that the AO has mentioned as under: “Whereas ... penalty- proceeding. According to Ld. AR, the notice issued by AO is very much vague in as much it contains stereotype language of section 271(1)(c). The Ld. AR contended that by mentioning that the assessee has “concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income

Vijay Choudhary, Andheri Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(2), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 483/IND/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2004-05

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

Section 271(1)(c)

made two-fold submissions: (i) Firstly, our attention is drawn to the show-notice dated 30.12.2010 issued by AO u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), placed at Page 1 of Paper- Book. Referring to same, Ld. AR showed that the AO has mentioned as under: “Whereas ... penalty- proceeding. According to Ld. AR, the notice issued by AO is very much vague in as much it contains stereotype language of section 271(1)(c). The Ld. AR contended that by mentioning that the assessee has “concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income

Vijay Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(2), Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 482/IND/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2003-04

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

Section 271(1)(c)

made two-fold submissions: (i) Firstly, our attention is drawn to the show-notice dated 30.12.2010 issued by AO u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), placed at Page 1 of Paper- Book. Referring to same, Ld. AR showed that the AO has mentioned as under: “Whereas ... penalty- proceeding. According to Ld. AR, the notice issued by AO is very much vague in as much it contains stereotype language of section 271(1)(c). The Ld. AR contended that by mentioning that the assessee has “concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income

Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 789/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

allowed and the order passed by the Calcutta High Court is set aside.” Here it is submitted that under the old provision of section 271(1)(c), furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is pari-materiawith the provisions of section 270A dealing with the misreporting of income for which the penalty ... levied in the impugned order thus the ratio decided by appellate forums in section 271(1)(c) are also applicable for the penalty levied u/s 270A. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 has held that “"An order imposing

Jaipur Telecom Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 788/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

allowed and the order passed by the Calcutta High Court is set aside.” Here it is submitted that under the old provision of section 271(1)(c), furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is pari-materiawith the provisions of section 270A dealing with the misreporting of income for which the penalty ... levied in the impugned order thus the ratio decided by appellate forums in section 271(1)(c) are also applicable for the penalty levied u/s 270A. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 has held that “"An order imposing

Micropoint Computers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3414/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Fattesing Punaji Dhabre, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Nagpur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 82/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: CA AsliyaRozaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGOUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT ITAT : PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Fattesing Punaji Dhabre, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Nagpur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 81/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: CA AsliyaRozaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGOUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT ITAT : PUNE] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Apparao Mutchakarla, Vizag vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vizag

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 4/VIZ/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.04/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-08) Apparao Mutchakarla, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vizag. Income Tax, Pan: Ahvpm 9813 F Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 19/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीयअधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्िूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याययक

Dori Winery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result ITA number 1145/M/2024 filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1145/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dori Winery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer 6(2)(1) 366 Dhuru Lodge, Aayakar Bhavan, Veer Savarkar Marg, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400028 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd1400A Assessee By : Shri Haridas Bhatt Revenue By : Smt. Smitha V. Nair (Sr. Ar.) Date Of Hearing: 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair (Sr. Ar.)
Section 139Section 148Section 196ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37

assessee against the penalty order passed by the learned assessing officer i.e. ITO Ward 6 (2) (3), Mumbai on 26/6/2019 levying penalty under section 271 (1) ( C ) of the income tax act, 1961 (the act) of ₹ 877,980 is dismissed. 02. The assessee is aggrieved with the same ... income. Dori Winery Pvt. Ltd.; A. Y.2014-15 07. As the assessee has not filed any return of income penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271 (1) ( c) by issue of notice under section 271 ( 1 ) (c ) read with section 274 of the income tax act on 10/4/2019. The assessee furnished

Mack Star Marketing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1812/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 23

activity within the meaning of S 271(1)(c) read with explanation I thereto, of the I T Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income.” 12. In A.Y. 2008-09 again assessment order