← 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)

Charumatiben Jitendra Mehta Legal Heir of Late Jitendra Narottamdas Mehta, Thane vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed

ITA 961/AHD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), Ms. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the penalty order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar, under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2009-10. ITA No. 961/Ahd/2023 (Charumatiben

Shaileshbhai Kanaiyalal Mehta, Vadodara vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 613/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member

Shrenik Hiralal Shah, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

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

ITA 1130/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Shrenik Hiralal Shah The Asstt.Cit 5/A Vrundavan Bungalows Vs Circle-1(1)91) Near Mathura Nagari, Tandalja Vadodara Vadodara -390 020 Gujarat, India Pan: Apnps 0058 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms.Amrion Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Makwana, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31/10/2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Ms.Amrion Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

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

Anil Kumar Tanwar, Bhiwadi vs. ITO Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

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

ITA 36/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Nfac/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), But The Nfac Has Failed To Consider It & Passed The Order On Dated 20.11.2023 & Dismiss The Appeal Which Deserved To Be Accepted.

For Appellant: Sh. P C Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Shri Krishnaraj Buildhome Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43CSection 50

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR श्री संदीDeep गोसाई, न्यायिक

Shri Krishnaraj Buildhome Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

ITA 752/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sharma (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43CSection 50

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Eka Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 977/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Eka Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Building 2A, East Tower, Bengaluru. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarbeesanhalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru – 575 001. Pan : Aabce 3660 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ajay Rotti, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

grounds raised read as follows: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law by deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Page 2 of 5 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in holding that penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1 ... estimation basis. 3. The decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with the Explanation 1 of the section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has decided similar issue

M/S Sai Granite Exporters & Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessement Centre, Delhi, Mumbai

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

ITA 3463/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2024AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Shri. Vijaykumar TiwariFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, SR.AR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Citi Corp International Finance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(2)

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2732/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. IraniFor Respondent: 17.11.2023
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Citicorp International Finance Corporation, Mumbai vs. Addl.D.I.T. (It) RG.-1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2545/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. IraniFor Respondent: 17.11.2023
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA

Leapfrog, Gulmohar Park vs. ITO, Ward 29(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1774/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaleapfrog, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (1), A-14, Third Floor, New Delhi. Gulmohar Park, New Delhi – 110 049. (Pan : Aaatl3565D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate Shri Rajeev Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2024 Date Of Order : 14.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)Section 3

assessment year 2012-13. 2. Although the assessee has raised various grounds, the only issue pertains to penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file its return of income

Apl Apollo Tubes Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2971/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 06.12.2022 for the assessment year 2013-14 in sustaining the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act,1961. 2 2. The learned counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that the initiation of penalty proceedings ... under Section 271(1)(c) is bad in law for the reason that in the notice issued under Section 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the relevant limb of the charge was not specified i.e. whether the penalty is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for concealment

DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi vs. D. Light Energy Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 596/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal. 3. The Brief Facts Qua The Issue Raised Is That The Assessee

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Pravin Juneja HUF, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi

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

ITA 2247/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

order dated 30.01.2018 passed by CIT(A) in the case of M/s. Pravin Juneja HUF in relation to the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2005- 06. 2. The facts in issue involved in the quantum of appeal in the cases ... Pravin Juneja HUF for the addition sustained in the quantum appeal. Since, we have already deleted the addition, accordingly the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also deleted. 15. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced

M/S. Pravin Juneja HUF, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6622/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

order dated 30.01.2018 passed by CIT(A) in the case of M/s. Pravin Juneja HUF in relation to the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2005- 06. 2. The facts in issue involved in the quantum of appeal in the cases ... Pravin Juneja HUF for the addition sustained in the quantum appeal. Since, we have already deleted the addition, accordingly the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also deleted. 15. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced

M/S. Bha Associates Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6621/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

order dated 30.01.2018 passed by CIT(A) in the case of M/s. Pravin Juneja HUF in relation to the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2005- 06. 2. The facts in issue involved in the quantum of appeal in the cases ... Pravin Juneja HUF for the addition sustained in the quantum appeal. Since, we have already deleted the addition, accordingly the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also deleted. 15. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced

S K Bhansali & Associates, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1320/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292CSection 69B

impugned capital gain was taxable in an another manner. 27. It is well settled proposition that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are independent proceedings and that the conclusions reached in the assessment proceedings are not conclusive so far as the penal ... proceedings was not warranted then the findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be considered as conclusive so as to fasten penal liability under Section 271(1)(c) on the assessee. In support of the aforesaid proposition, we may rely upon the ratio of judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High

S Sagar Enterprise, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2895/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2895/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) S Sagar Enterprise बिधम/ Dcit, Cc-1(1) Be-5010, Bharat Diamond Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Vs. Bourse, Bandra Kurla Cgo Annexe, Maharishi Complex, Bandra (East), Karve Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagfs8866G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rahul Sarda (Adv) Revenue By: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Dated 22.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee As Discernable From Perusal Of Grounds Of Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Act (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs.16,17,140/-.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

penalty order dated 07.02.2022 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, which also does not spell out as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been found to have been committed by assessee for levy of penalty. Thus, we find that assessee

Paramount Villas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-76, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3446/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 272(2)(g)Section 272A(2)(g)Section 275(1)

dated December 28, 2007 the Assessing Officer ("the AO") in the concluding paragraph issued a direction to initiate proceedings against the assessee under sections 271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S Mgi Infracon Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier M/S Bigmoon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 3797/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakroborty, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI KUL