“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)

Bitthal Das Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 272/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271A

circumstances of the case, it is so warranted. The only bar is that no penalty under the provisions of section 270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income, as defined u/s 271AAB of the Act, unearthed during the search action ... carried out u/s 132 of the Act. It is to be noted that the provisions of section 271AAB and section 271(1)(c) of the Act simultaneously existed and were operational till the provisions of section 271AAC become effective from 01.04.2017. The Assessing Officer has levied penalty

Torane Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Palghar vs. ITO, Ward 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2385/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2010-11 Torane Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. V. Ito, Ward 15(3)(1), Survey No.5/2,5/3, 6 & 7, Mumbai Village Torane Taluka Wada, Palghar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aacct9196K Assessee By: Shri Kumar Kale Revenue By: Shri P.D. Chougule, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 2.11.2023 Date Of : 3.11.2023 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Learned CIT-A) for assessment year 2010-11 on 22/2/2023 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 26/9/2016, levying penalty of Rs.38 lakhs, was partly allowed. The assessee is aggrieved ... passed on 2/3/2016, wherein penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 04. Thus, notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued which was replied by the assessee on 3/6/2016 making a detailed argument relying on several judicial precedents. The Learned Assessing

Sri Harikuttan T, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Alleppey

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

assessee, in the intimate know of his affairs, who nevertheless returns a lower income, and brought forth specifically per Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is thus presumed (Cement Marketing Company of India vs. Asst. CST [1980] 124 ITR 15 (SC)). Saving is, further, provided

Prakash Davara, Raipur vs. Assistant Coimmissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 177/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prakash Davara, 08, Gitanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupd0169K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: S/shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR &

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Basant Sekhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 585/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

challenged the validity of addition in quantum assessment and in ITA No. 585/Srt/2023, the assessee has challenged the validity of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). Both the appeals are interconnected, thus, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together ... account of investment in shares and added under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 13/1/2018. Alongwith appeal, the assessee filed application for condonation

Basant Sekhani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Sohanlal Motilal Jain, Borivali vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2551/MUM/2023[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri.Narendra Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Prakash Rastogi. Ld

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

directed the Assessing Officer to apply a net profit of 12.68% on closing work-in-progress. 3. Consequently, the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated which culminated into levy of penalty of Rs.7,04,535/- vide order dated 11/03/2015 u/s 271(1)(c

Moreshwar Krushna Baria, Virar vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2469/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Mumbai vs. CIT Appeals, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2464/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM आयकर

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Thane vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2463/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM आयकर

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2462/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM आयकर

Income Tax Officer-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankita Reality and Development Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2212/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ Ankita Reality & Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Road, Mumbai-400020. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400104. Cross Objection No. 106/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ankita Reality & बिधम/ Ito-12(1)(1) Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400104. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca4513D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. Ekta Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2023 For The Ay 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Pointed Out That Assessee Had Not 2 Co. No.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality & Development Pvt. Ltd. Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. & The Cross- Objection (Co) Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Supporting The Action Of The Ld Cit(A), As Well As Has Raised Certain Legal Issues.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. EktaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

reads as under: - “1. The Learned Assessing Officer Ward 12(1)(1), Mumbai has grossly erred in levying penalty and passing order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(‘Act’) despite having no jurisdiction whatsoever in view of the introduction of Faceless Penalty Scheme w.e.f ... onwards. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without obtaining prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and 3 CO. NO.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality and Development Pvt. Ltd. thereby violating the procedure laid down

M/S Sanofi India Ltd (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1606/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

ACIT- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mm/S Sanofi India Limited (Formerly Known As Aventis Pharma Ltd)., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1302/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Qamar Afzal Talat, Dubai vs. ITO Ward 28(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 926/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Shivangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271F

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Ginni Gold Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Anup Mehta

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

hereinafter referred 1 I.T.A. No. 564/Del/2022 to CIT (Appeals)] New Delhi, dated 8.02.2022 for the assessment year 2016-17 in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for not remitting the TDS into Govt. account consequently disallowance of Rs.46 ... invoking the provisions under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Subsequently the ld. CIT (Appeals) passed order dated 8.02.2022 levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee on the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.46,50,432/- under section

DCIT Central Circle-30, New Delhi vs. Urmila Goyal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1650/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 44A

income of the assessee. Since, the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of the Income. I am satisfied that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are attracted and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) will be initiated on this issue.” 19. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that