“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)

Sandeep Narayan Rathi, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1824/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shashank A. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Commissioner in para-5.2 of the impugned also misunderstood that the appeal has been preferred against the order levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas it is a fact as also appeared in para-1 of the impugned order that the order under challenge before ... Commissioner was under section 143(3) of the Act but not under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3 Sandeep Narayan Rathi 3.1 Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances as the Ld. Commissioner failed to decide the appeal in proper manner in the absence of reply and documents which

Measeg. Surinder Sat Agro Foods, Jalalabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 304/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Measage. Surinder Sat Agro Foods, Jalalabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 303/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

M/S Surinder Sat Agro Foods, Jalalabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 214/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 282

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Vivaan Infotel Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5549/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 217(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

Delhi (“CIT(A)”) whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 6,67,421/- levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act) for filing inaccurate particulars of income pertaining to Assessment year (“AY”) 2015-16. 2. The assessee ... income and imposed penalty of Rs. 6,67,421/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded vide order dated 21.06.2018 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee did not succeed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed its appeal by observing and recording

Sanjay Kumar Choudhary HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer- 2(3)(6), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 618/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.618/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary Huf, Vs. The Ito, 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Ward- 2(3)(6), Jadakadi, Mahidharpura, Surat Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealed the income to the tune of Rs.4,97,863/-. Thus, the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 4. After considering the assessment records and reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer concluded that assessee has furnished ... basis of which the penalty was levied, is purely an estimated addition. It is settled position in law that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied on additions made on estimation. The similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Manish Dhirajlal Mehta

Janakkumar Mukundprasad Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Bardoli, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Janakkumar Mukundprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patel Bardoli Vs. 57 Omnagar, Tarsadi Kosamba (R.S) Surat-394120 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Auzpp 2106 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 05/10/2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short, “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 18.04.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’), Dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1.On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) When Assessing Office Had Not Specified In The Notice U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) Whether The Penalty Was Leviable For Concealment Of Particulars Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Thereof. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Office In Levying Penalty Of Rs.3,09,062/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Levied By The Assessing Office & Confirmed By Cit(A) May Please Be Deleted.

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

dated 18.04.2023, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by the Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Bardoli, under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 02.06.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1.On ... income and concealed particulars of income of Rs.5,45,000/-. Hence, the assessee has defaulted within the meaning of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, to the tune of Rs.3,09,062/-. 5. Aggrieved

Ashok Parnami, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 5, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 524/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

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

Jafar Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 518/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Jafar Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 517/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Jafar Khan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 516/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Warner Bros. International Television Distribution Inc., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internationa Taxation )-4(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 848/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manuj SabharwalFor Respondent: 10.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148Section 250

section 139(1) and 115A(5) of the Act thus the assessee ahs concealed its particulars of income as per the section 271(1)(c)”. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 10,98,10,108 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Dy.DIT., (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. Global Cricket Corporation Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4990/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Dy. Cit(It) – 3(1) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. Scindia House, R. No. 132, 1St Floor, C/O. S. R. Batliboi & Co. Vs. 18Th Floor, Express Towers, N. M. Road, Mumbai- 38 Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Revenue) : (Assessee) & Cross Objection No. 83/Mum/2012 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4990/Mum/2011) (Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte Ltd. The Dy. Dit (It)-3(1) C/O. S R B C & Associates Mumbai- 400 038 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Vs. 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400 028 Pan/Gir No. Aabcg 7951 L (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri P J Pardiwala/Aarati Sathe Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma : 16.10.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2023

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

explanation offered by the assessee are found to be false and that the same is covered by clause (A) of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by the ld. A.O. excluding the payment received on account of Broadcasting ... case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest". 190. Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further

The ADIT (It)-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Global Cricket Corpn Pte. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 171/MUM/2008[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2002-2003

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

M/S. Suparshav Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 342/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH ‘SMC’: JODHPUR (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND

Kunal J. Luthara, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-24(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2122/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Hitesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Singh, Sr.AR

Section 271(1)(c)

hereinafter referred to as the assessee) pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 one being quantum appeal and another against the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) are being disposed of with composite order for the sake of brevity ... framed under section 143(3) of the Act initiated the penalty proceedings by way of issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On failure of the assessee to appear before the AO, the AO levied the penalty of Rs.8

Kunal J. Luthara, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-24(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2121/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. Hitesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Singh, Sr.AR

Section 271(1)(c)

Greenwoods Govt. Officers Welfare Society, Noida vs. DCIT Circle 52(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

penalty. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected all the decisions relied upon by the assessee saying that they were rendered in the context of section 271(1)(c). Since the assessee had not filed application under section 270AA to seek immunity from imposition of penalty

Shri Soumya Sarit Choudhary, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Nagpur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 127/NAG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MoryaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kaumudi Patil, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : PUNE BENCHES : PUNE

Soumya Sarit Choudhary, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Warrd -2(1), Nagpur

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/NAG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MoryaniFor Respondent: Dr. Kaumudi Patil, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING AT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : PUNE BENCHES : PUNE