“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)

Virender Singh, Advocate, Asalatpur vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1126/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg –SR. DR

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

assessee is against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Delhi, Appeal No. NFAC/2011- 12/10070049 dated 23.02.2023 against the order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) dated 13.12.2021 passed by ITO, Ward-2(2)(5), Ghaziabad ... also raised the ground that quantum appeal against the order is pending for disposal before the first appellate authority, yet penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) imposing a penalty of Rs.1,93,331 has been confirmed against which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Brief facts

Tpg Software Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6468/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C(3)(c)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically without recording any adequate reasons for such initiation.” 3. TPG Software Private Limited ("TPG India") is a private limited company

Intergreon Munaged Solutions (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 586/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved

Section 250Section 92D

compute its total income and tax liability thereon accordingly. 2.0 General 2.1. The learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. The brief facts are that the assessee filed its return of income dated 14.10.2010, declaring total income at Rs.2

Integreon Managed Solutions (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2307/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved

Section 250Section 92D

ITO 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Integreon Managed Solution (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2095/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved

Section 250Section 92D

Chhattisgarh Rajya Open School, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption Circle, Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 2/RPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Chhattisgarh Rajya Open School Madhyamik Siksha Mandal, Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aaagc0179F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

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

Amadoroco Ltd, Cyprus vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1) (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1007/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Sh. Amit Sharma, Sumit JainFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

Appellant. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, rectify and amend all or any of the Grounds of Appeal

Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemetion 2, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 261/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.261/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shivom Vidyapeeth Shikshan Samiti V Income Tax Officer 214, Shivom Vihar Raipur-492 013 S Exemption-2 Chhattisgarh Raipur Pan: Aahts 6464M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G.S. Agrawal & Shubham Agarwal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 26.10.2022 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2015-16, Instituted Against The Penalty Order By Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 28.06.2018. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That Under The Facts & The Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Penalty Levied By The Ld. Ao U/S 271(1)(C) At Rs.2,40,630/- Rejecting The Explanation. Prayed That Provisions Of Sec.271(1)(C) Are Not Applicable, Penalty Levied At Rs.2,40,630/- Kindly Be Cancelled. 2. That Under The Facts & The Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Further Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied At Rs. 2,40,630/- U/S 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao, Though The Ld. Ao Did Not Allow Opportunity To The Appellant As To For Which Default, Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated. Prayed To Cancel The Penalty.

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal & ShubhamFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद

M/S Eternal Heart Care Centre & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd., 3A, Jagatpura Road, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271A

initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) while framing assessment is not a good ground for invoking revisional powers u/s 263. Section 271(1)(c) read in conjunction with sec. 263 given an unmistakable impression that while in the wake of amendment u/s 271(1)(c) w.e.f

Arun Soni, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 221/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 220 & 221/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Arun Soni Industrial Area, Tifra Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Ajeps8535K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Arun Soni, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 220/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Mr Bimal H. Kiri, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1335/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal &For Respondent: Ms. R.M Brindha.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

year 2011-12 made several additions and disallowances. 2. that the Assessing Officer by two separate orders, both dated 26.09.2014 levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs 11,27,000 and Rs 60,000, respectively 3. that I filed an appeal ... against the order of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) dated 27.03.2014, and also against penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act both dated 26.09.2014, with the Commissioner of Income (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) on 1st February

Ashok Kumar Singh, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 150/RPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 150/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Singh P-10, Rishab Green City, Pulgaon, Durg-491 001 (C.G) Pan : Bcfps1394K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(2), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

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

prejudice writ large on the face of the mechanical methods the Revenue adopts in sending a statutory notice to the assessee under section 271 (1) (c) read with section 274 of the Act? Pragmatically speaking, Kaushalya casts an extra burden on the assessee and assumes expertise on his part ... assessment proceedings revealing the grounds of penalty proceedings. Assessment order need not contain a specific, explicit finding of whether the conditions mentioned in section 271(1)(c) exist in the case. It is because Explanations 1(A) and 1(B), as the deeming provisions, create a legal fiction

Raj Kishore Prasad, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.146/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Hearing) Raj Kishore Prasad, Vs. The Ito, 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex, Ward-3, Nr. Regenta Central Antarim Hotel, Valsad Off Cg Road, Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aitpp0535A (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 10(5)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

part of income to remain outside fold of taxation. ITA.146/SRT/2023/AY.2012-13 Raj Kishore Prasad 4.5 In view of the above discussion, the proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were rightly initiated against the assessee and the penalty was also rightly imposed on him. There is no error ... employer) in respect of the same LTC has been deleted by the Tribunal, therefore in the hands of the assessee, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act may also be deleted. 8. The Ld. Counsel also submitted that Assessing Officer vide assessment order para no.7.2, has initiated