← 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)

Reliable Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Thane

ITA 4812/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: the Learned CIT(A). However, the

For Appellant: Ms. Sakina AmreliwalaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

dated 28/05/2025, passed by the Ld. CIT(A) whereby the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Penalty Order, dated 31/01/2022, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 was dismissed. 4. We would first take up ITA No.4811/Mum/2025 pertaining to the quantum ... dated 10/12/2019, in respect of quantum additions made for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The present appeal pertains to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act pursuant to the additions made by the Assessing Officer vide the aforesaid Assessment Order, dated 10/12/2019 for the Assessment Year

Reliable Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by the Assessee is allowed and all the other

ITA 4811/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Sakina AmreliwalaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

dated 28/05/2025, passed by the Ld. CIT(A) whereby the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Penalty Order, dated 31/01/2022, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 was dismissed. ITA No.4811/Mum/2025 4. We would first take up ITA No.4811/Mum/2025 pertaining ... dated 10/12/2019, in respect of quantum additions made for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. The present appeal pertains to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act pursuant to the additions made by the Assessing Officer vide the aforesaid Assessment Order, dated 10/12/2019 for the Assessment Year

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 922/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarvodafone Mobile Dcit Circle-26(2), C.R. Building, New Services Limited Delhi-110015 (Former Known As Vs. Vodafone West Limited). Vodafone House, B-Wing, 4Th Floor, Corporate Road, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs4457Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09 .01.2026

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(2)Section 144C(4)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 92C

source amounting to Rs. 94,168/-. Ground No. 13 Initiation of penalty proceedings - The assessee has challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as being premature and unsustainable. 5. The assessee filed an application on 22.05.2017 seeking admission of additional Ground

Nimus Projects Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida

The appeal are disposed of as not pressed

ITA 5015/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Nimbus Projects Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida

The appeal are disposed of as not pressed

ITA 5014/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Numbus Projects Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida

The appeal are disposed of as not pressed

ITA 5013/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren, Delhi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-4, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2926/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

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

Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren, Delhi vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range - 04, Delhi

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2925/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

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

Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren, Delhi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range-4, Delhi

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2924/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

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

Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren, Delhi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range-4, Delhi

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2923/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

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

Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren, Delhi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2922/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

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

Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren, Delhi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range-4, Delhi

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2921/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

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

Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren, Delhi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range-4, Delhi

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2920/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

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

Sanjeev Jai Narain Aeren, Delhi vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range-4, Delhi

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2919/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

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

M/S Halcrow Group Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (Interntional Taxation), New Delhi

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

ITA 1266/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Halcrow Group Ltd, Vs. Dcit, R-27, 2Nd Floor, Pratap Circle-2(1)(1)- Market, Jangpura, B, New It, Delhi-110014 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaach7866E Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv Ms. Soumya Sigh, Adv Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Ekta Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Jain, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)

ITA No. 1266/Del/2017 M/s. Halcrow Group Ltd INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

Ganesh Ram Dokania, Banka vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Years: 2014-15 Ganesh Ram Dokania………..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Dokania Market, Aliganj, Bihar-813102.. [Pan: Aadfg1795P] Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Patna…….………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. A H Chowdhury, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 08, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Real Estate Business & The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 15.11.2016 In Response To Notice U/S 153A Of The Act By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.31,56,350/-. Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued & Subsequently, Assessment U/S. 153A/144 Was Completed At A Total Income Of Rs.25,67,79,232/- Wherein The Assessing Officer Imposed Penalty U/S. 271Aab Of The Act At Rs. 1,60,00,000/- On Undisclosed Income.

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section ... Income-tax v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) held that the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where the show cause notice under section

Ashalata Kulshrestha, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1737/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

which is quoted in the penalty order which can be seen that the Assessing Officer has not specified under which sub-section of section 271(1)(c) the penalty was supposed to be levied on the assessee. In fact, the penalty order clearly is not mentioning a limb of section

Afsha Shamim Ahmed Khan, Nashik vs. The ITO Ward-1(3), Nashik

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

ITA 2858/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2858/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Afsha Shamim Ahmed Khan, V The Income Tax Officer, 11, Paradise Plaza, Opposite S Ward-1(3), Nashik. Alone Point, Hotel Shingada Talao, Nashik – 422001. Pan: Azmpk3812B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2010-11 Dated 20.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Act, Dated 11.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

Rs.40,00,000/- is treated as Long Term Capital Gain. Since the assessee has concealed the particulars of income, therefore, penal proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are separately initiated on this amount.” ITA No.2858/PUN/2025 [A] 3. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, Assessee filed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Fiat India Automobiles Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1098/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

same be deleted and/or correspondingly reduced. 5. Ground No. 5 Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw

M/S. Fiat India Automobiles Private Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1027/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

same be deleted and/or correspondingly reduced. 5. Ground No. 5 Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw