“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)

Jamnaben Parshottamdas Patel, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward(1), Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1801/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and in facts by confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c), despite full disclosure of income in the return and during assessment proceedings. There was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars; hence ... thus the element of concealment does not appear in the present matter. Thought the quantum is confirmed while for invoking section 271(1)(c) the element of filing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income, these two conditions either has to be followed and substantiated

Smt. Urmila Dhelia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4259/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL‘“F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Prestigious Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -18, New Delhi

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

ITA 1050/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment orders dated 18.03.2016 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and dated 16.09.2016 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income ... this case. 3. Aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) in dismissing its appeals qua orders u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and under section 271(1)(c), the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-27, New Delhi, failed

Prestigious Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Centre Circle - 18, New Delhi

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

ITA 1046/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Pari Anil Gandhi, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 897/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 896 & 897/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Pari Anil Gandhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), C-702 Sadguru Vatika, Airport Road, 2- Aayakar Bhavan Race Course Ring Maruti Nagar, Rajkot - 360001 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bahpg7804E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 10 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026 आदेश/Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 22/11/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T. Act, On Dated 28/03/2022. 2. Since, The Issues Involved All These Appeals Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Are Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take The Lead Case In Ita No.896/Rjt/2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. Ita No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 154Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

ITA No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Pari Anil Gandhi, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(1) Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 896/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 154Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

ITA No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

Nayna Mukeshkumar Kotecha, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Rajkot

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

ITA 187/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Shingala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN

Marut Paper Products Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

ITA 393/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

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

IV/KNP/10788/2015-16 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. 2. In this case, penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) amounting to Rs.47,21,400/- was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) vide

Santosh Arun Kaspate, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Pune

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

ITA 2199/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2198 & 2199/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Santosh Arun Kaspate, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Panchwati Niwas Kaspate Vasti, Wakad, Pune- 411027. Pan : Acypk3347C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 25.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2198/Pun/2025 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Santosh Arun Kaspate, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Pune

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

ITA 2198/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Synergy Art Foundation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6598/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishm/S. Synergy Art Foundation Ltd. Dcit, Circle 8(2)(1) 3Rd Pasta Lane, 8/9, Colaba, Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Mumbai-400 005 Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aabcs 7467 F (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. Prabhakar – Ca Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 13.08.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Confirming The Penalty Imposed Of Rs.8,44,632/- U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In The Business Of Selling Artworks & Paintings. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return On 30.09.2012, Declaring Loss Of Rs.34,84,139/-.

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar – CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Iyogi Technical Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 323/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 194(2)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘I’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Iyogi Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2064/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 194(2)Section 195Section 9(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘I’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

Subramanian Sudhakar Thiagarajan, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(3), Madurai

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

ITA 2649/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Tarun, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Smt Rashmi Ramesh Damani, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 17(1), Mumbai

ITA 1129/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra

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

matters remained unattended. Therefore, the appeal before the Tribunal could not filed within the prescribed time. On receipt of Penalty Order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, she contacted tax professional who advised her to file appeal before the Tribunal. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7294/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

proceedings On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.” 4. Ground No.1 is general in nature, and therefore, the same needs no specific adjudication. 5. Grounds No.2 ... Therefore, the same need no separate adjudication. 57. Ground No.16 raised in assessee's appeal pertains to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is premature in nature. Therefore, the said ground is dismissed. 58. In the result, the appeal by the assessee

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 7393/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

proceedings On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.” Ground No.1 is general in nature, and therefore, the same needs no specific adjudication. 5. Grounds No.2 ... Therefore, the same need no separate adjudication. 57. Ground No.16 raised in assessee’s appeal pertains to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is premature in nature. Therefore, the said ground is dismissed. 58. Inthe result, the appeal by the assessee

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

proceedings On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.” Ground No.1 is general in nature, and therefore, the same needs no specific adjudication. 5. Grounds No.2 ... Therefore, the same need no separate adjudication. 57. Ground No.16 raised in assessee's appeal pertains to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is premature in nature. Therefore, the said ground is dismissed. 58. In the result, the appeal by the assessee

Thermo Fisher Scienftific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 1236/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

Neetu Gupta, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kapurthala, Punjab

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4496/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

ITA No.4496/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "B"NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE VICE