“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)

Panexcell Clinical Lab Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Holding Charges of Income Tax Officer 18(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1215/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

Charging Interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961 Which is most unjustified and Arbitrary. Levy of Penalty under section 271(1)(c).” The Appellant has raised the following Additional Grounds of appeal 3. vide letter dated 04/07/2023: “(1) On the facts and in the circumstances

DCIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reliance Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1149/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman () Ι.Τ.Α. No.1147/Mum/2023 : A.Y. 2011-12 Ι.Τ.Α. No.1148/Mum/2023 : A.Y. 2012-13 Ι.Τ.Α. No.1149/Mum/2023 : A.Y. 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai Vs M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Room No.455, 4Th Floor Ground Floor, Reliance Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 19, Walchandhirachand Marg Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Appellant Pan : Aaacr7446Q Respondent Present For The Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth (Ld. Adv), Sh. Jitendra Sanghvi (Ld. Ca) Present For The Department : Shri Rahul Kumar (Ld. Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024 Order Per N.K. Choudhry (Jm): These Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee, Against The Separate Ordersevendated 08/02/2023 Impugned Herein Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ( In Short `Nfac') / Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short `Ld. Commissioner') Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, `The Act') For The A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2015-16, Respectively. 2

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth (Ld. Adv)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Kumar (Ld. CIT DR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

1 ITA 1147 to 1149/Mum/2023 Reliance Infrastructure Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI.NARENDER

Schott Glass India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

ITA 7356/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mahesh Jiwade

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer ('LD. AO') in levying a penalty of Rs.2,90,26,451 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the additions to the returned income pursuant to the Transfer Pricing adjustment on the international transactions u/s 92CA made ... Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bombay), wherein the relevant Para of the head note is reproduced as under:- “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income (Recording of satisfaction) - Whether where assessment order clearly

Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Circle 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

ITA 2594/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Mahesh Jiwade

Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

Subhash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19 (1) & (2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7426/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3814/Del/2015 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 बनाम Dcit Subhash Chander Sehgal, Circle 19(1) Vs. Block A-3, Lsc, Janakpuri, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aatps8259C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 80ISection 8Q

satisfied that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of explanation to Section 271(1)(c). Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act is initiated.” 20. On careful perusal of the assessment order, we noticed that

Subhash Chander Sehgal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(1) & 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5420/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Section 80ISection 8Q

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subhash Chander Sehgal, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3814/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Section 80ISection 8Q

(Late) Nageswara Rao Veeramachaneni L/R Veeramachaneni Surendra Babu, Nandigama vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 635/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K. Sudhakar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr.AR

Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)

assessee failed to disclose accurate particulars of income, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.12,35,537/- under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the assessment order dt.29.12.2017 and the penalty order dt.27.06.2018, assessee filed the captioned appeals which were later migrated

(Late) Nageswara Rao Veeramachaneni L/R Veeramachaneni Surendra Babu, Nandigama vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(5), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 634/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K. Sudhakar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri T. Venkanna, Sr.AR

Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)

M/S Ci Builders P Ltd, Bhopal vs. The DCIT-1(1)

ITA 253/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

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

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

M/S C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 249/IND/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2010-2011

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

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

M/S C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 248/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

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

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

M/S C.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The ACIT, 1(2), Bhopal

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 247/IND/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Jan 2024AY 2010-2011

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

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle (1), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2845/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Eureka Outsourcing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle (1) 5Th Floor, High Street Cum Highland Thane Corporate Centre, Kapurbawadi, Vs. Thane-400 607

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar S. BiyaniFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Choughule

Section 143(3)Section 197Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

hereunder for ease of reference: 7. As against this, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent pointed out that the language of section 271(1)(c) had to be strictly construed, this being a taxing statute and more particularly the one providing for penalty. It was pointed out that ... pointed out that there was no concealment or any inaccurate particulars regarding the income were submitted in the Return. Section 271(1)(c) is as under :— "271. (1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied

M/S A.C.Chokshi Share Brokers Pvt Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2990/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Ac Chokshi Acit, Cc-1(3) Share Brokers Pvt Ltd, 905, 9Th Floor, बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Itts House, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. 28K Dubash Marg, Old Cgo Annex, Kala Ghoda, Fort, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400023. Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabca3464E (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri.Dharan Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Manoj Kumar Sinha.DR

Section 271(1)(C)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Meka Ranganayakamma, Krishna District vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 119/VIZ/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 50GSection 54G

came to a conclusion that the assessee has concealed the income to the tune of Rs. 15,63,290/- within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 2,82,897/-. Aggrieved by the penalty order of the Ld. AO, the assessee ... 1)(c) of the Act. Further, the Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has not concealed any income attracting the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. He therefore pleaded that the penalty amount of Rs. 2,82,897/- may be deleted. 4. On the contrary

Radhe Developers (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Radhe Developers (India) Ltd. Acit, Cir.3(1)(2) 1St Floor, Chunibhai Chamber Vs Ahmedabad. B/H. City Gold Cinema Ashram Road Ahmedabad 380 009. Pan : Aaacr 9177 L

For Respondent: Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) confirming the levy of penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under ... admission, was deleted bythe ld.CIT(A). This fact emanates from para-1 to 4 of the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) 4 of the Act, wherein at para-4, the AO clearly mentions that he has reasons to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars

Shakti Stonex, Industrial Area Kishangarh vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

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

India Flysafe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1583/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Meenakshi Dohare, Sr. DR

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Kishan Kumar Agarwal, Secunderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 573/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Kishan Kumar Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Agarwal Central Circle 2(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ablpa3923C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2022 Of The Learned Cit(A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.17,05,680/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Page 2 of 14 ITA 573 of 2023 Kishan Kumar Agarwal given by the assessee and invoking the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.17,05,680/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded ... Mythili reported in (2014) 149 ITD 275 (Chennai Trib.) she submitted that in view of the specific provision of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty was rightly levied by the Assessing Officer and rightly sustained by the learned CIT (A). She submitted that the assessee