“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)

At Kearney Ltd.- India Branch Office, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 960/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 27l

234D of the Act. That the learned AO has erred, in law and on facts, in 4. proposing to initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above Grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves for leave to amend, vary, omit

At Kearney Ltd.- India Branch Office, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 959/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 27l

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. A.T. Kearney Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the Assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 1306/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 27l

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi vs. A.T. Kearney Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the Assessee’s in ITA Nos

ITA 1305/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 27l

Paras Equipments & Engineering Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1774/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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 ... mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. 2) Bombay High Court: Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs ACIT Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of 3 Paras Equipments & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c

Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad vs. Rajeshri Avas Developers Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 758/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 758/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Ito Rajeshri Avas Developers बनाम/ Ward -3(1)(1), Ahmedabad Private Limited Vs. A-9, Anupam Colony, Lbs Road, Opp. Chirag Diamond, Bapunagar, Gujarat 380024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr9139G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) None अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R.

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R

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

Ward-3(1)(1), ITA No. 758/Ahd/2023 (ITO vs. Rajeshri Avas Developers Private Limited) A.Y.– 2013-14 - 2 - Ahmedabad under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The matter relates to levy of penalty under ... Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of bogus purchase. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 26.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.3,97,36,810/- on account of bogus purchases which was further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Parallelly, the penalty

Hemu Chandhar Chelupuru, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 657/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.656 & 657/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Hemu Chandhar Vs. Income Tax Officer Chelupuru, Khammam Ward-1 Pan:Afmpc2764A Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

ITA 656 and 657 of 2023 Hemu Chandhar Chelupuru आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Hemu Chandhar Chelupuru, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

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

ITA 656/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

ITA 656 and 657 of 2023 Hemu Chandhar Chelupuru आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX

Farees Ahmed Khalil Ahmed Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-23(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3742/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY.S (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: S/Shri K.Gopal and Om Kandalkar,AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “एफ ”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, , , , "ाियक सद" एवं सु"ी प"ावती. एस, , , , लेखाकार सद" के

Marvel Drugs Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-6(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3626/MUM/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Marvel Drugs Pvt. Ito 6(3)(3), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 20, Nagin Mahal, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020 82 Vn Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm4655N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.R. Revenue By : Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/.2024 O R D E R Per : Sandeep Singh Karhail: 1. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 11/08/2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Learned Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2006-07, Which In Turn Arose From The Penalty Order Dated 26/03/2013 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Nijsure, A.RFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2006-07, which in turn arose from the penalty order dated 26/03/2013 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1) The learned CIT(A) erred ... both limbs of 271(1)(c), and therefore the AO failed to record his satisfaction while initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) as to which limb of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) is attracted. Your appellant craves leave to add to alter

Jitesh Jitendra Sakhidas, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30 (1) (5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3112/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A

Srinathji Yamunaji Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2597/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Bharat RaichandaniFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 143Section 250Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Deepak Dudeja (L/H of Sh. Manohar Lal), Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2839/DEL/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Deepak Dudeja Vs Ito, [Legal Heir Of Late Shri Manohar Ward 2(4), Lal], Cw-66, Malibu Town, Gurgaon. Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. Pan-Acepl00503F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms.Monalisa Maity, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2024

Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

same are emanating out of reassessment proceedings which are bad in law. 6. That the Ld. AO has erred in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F upon a deceased person. 7. That the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under section 234A, 234B

Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumara.Y. : 2016-17 Mobase India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Acit, 1C, Front Part Of Front Building, National E-Assessment Centre, Udyog Vihar, Ecotech-Ii, Greater New Delhi. Noida 201306, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecd 8832 G Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Dua, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Dua, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 2Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43(6)Section 43B

234C & 234D of the Income Tax Act in their order. 9. The Assessing officer erred in proposing to initiate the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2016- 17 on 16/10/2016, declaring

Kamal Enterprises and New Life Hospital, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

claimed depreciation on business assets, learned Assessing Officer treated the income of the assessee as income from business and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars. Initially, learned Assessing Officer passed an order dated 13/08/2021, levying a penalty ... insofar as the objection based on section 275 of the Act is concerned, section 275 of the Act says that the order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has to be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings for imposition of penalty were

Shanno Mohammed Yusuf Warsi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 1306/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Pankaj SoniFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Sree Navaladian Finance, Namakkal vs. ITO, Salem

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

ITA 1157/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

denote concealment, cannot be accepted because the legislature in its wisdom has made amendment in the provisions and instead of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, now brought in the statute book the provision of section 270A of the Act as introduced by the Finance ... show that he had objected to the issuance of the notice and as there was no basis for issuance of the notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, both limbs in the said provision do not get attracted. Hence, the decision of this Court in the case