← All Phrases

“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)

S Inder Pal Singh Ahuja, Amritsar vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Incomet-Ax, Amritsar

Appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 359/ASR/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

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

Shalini Gupta, Germany vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 1(3)(1), New Delhi

ITA 628/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmashalini Gupta Vs. Acit, Habsburger Str 7, Circle Int. Tax 1(3)(1) Duesseldorf 4057, New Delhi Germany 999999 Pan : Bnrpg7735F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 147Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SH

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 8978/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediasrf Limited Vs. Dcit Unitech Crest Block-C, Circle – 1, Sector – 45, Gurgaon Ltu, New Delhi Haryana – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. K. Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.08.2023

Section 115JSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

challenging the order dated 26.08.2019 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, New Delhi confirming a part of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Briefly the facts relating to the issue in dispute ... Short deduction of TDS 3. On the basis of the aforesaid additions, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act calling upon the assessee to explain why penalty should not be imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In response

Shri Rahim Umarbhai Ravkarda, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Rajkot

ITA 167/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 234ASection 274Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

Shri Lalitbhai Kishanbhai Nathani, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. The ACIT(OSD), Ward-1, Gandhidham, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, the matter is being restored to the file of Ld

ITA 10/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

Shri Kanjibhai B. Rangani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/RJT/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

cost of improvement, being amount of premium paid by the assessee for conversion of land. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and on the basis of facts as mentioned above, and a penalty amounting to Rs. 5,51,702/- was imposed ... Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed addition with the following observations: “5.0 I have carefully considered the Penalty order of the AO, the written submissions of the appellant and the rival contentions. Though the appellant has preferred a total

Akash Promotors Developer Private Limited, 2385, Akashdeep Complex vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)

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

ITA 361/JPR/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Your Honours In The Offline Mode On 30.05.2023 Against The Order Dated Passed By Ld. Cit(A)- Nfac Delhi U/S 250 Of The I. T. Act, 1961. Such Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A) Was Served On The Appellant On 29.03.2023, Thus The Appeal Against The Said Order Was Supposed To Have Been Filed By The Appellant By 28.05.2023, However Though The Appeal Was Instituted On Time Through The Online Mode, Submission Of Appeal In The Offline Mode Got Delayed By 2 Days, As The Appeal Physically Has Been Filed On 30.05.2023 For The Reasons As Explained Below:

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatiya (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as in the assessment order passed by Learned AO u/s 143(3) and in notice issued under section ... read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act it was not specifically pointed out whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate 4 Akash Promotors Developer Pvt. Ltd. particulars of income. In the absence of specific charges, levy of penalty may please

Balaji Universal Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3598/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Balaji Universal Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka House, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan: Aivpb1665R ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Cen. Cir. 7(1) Maharashtra, Mumbai ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Ld. DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Pali Textile Common Effluent Treatment Plant, Pali vs. CIT, Exemption, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 67/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI

ACIT, Circle (Exemption), Jodhpur vs. Pali Textile Common Effluent Treatment Plant, Pali

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 294/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI

DCIT, Circle, Rohtak vs. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 09.01.2023 arising from the penalty order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2015-16. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has challenged ... reversal of penalty of Rs.1,79,17,819/- by the CIT(A) imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. I.T.A. No.676/Del/2023 2 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel in the Revenue’s appeal pointed out that impugned penalty under

Rajesh Filaments Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 409/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.409/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rajesh Filaments Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 218, Jeevandeep Opp. J.K. Tower, Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 1294 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant ) (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar – Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

Centre, Delhi [for short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’] dated 10.05.2023, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 20.03.2018. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by assessee

Kamlesh Jethmal Shah, Silvassa vs. Income Tax Officer, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa

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

ITA 368/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.368/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kamlesh Jethmal Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No.P-9/1, Everest Garden, Silvassa, First Floor, B.B.Mall, Vs. Opp. Indian Bank, Naroli Road, Near Civil Court, Tokarkhada, Silvassa-396230 Silvassa-39230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeqps 7259 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Kaushali Shah, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/08/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2023

Section 271(1)(c)

Centre, Delhi (in short “NFAC/ld. CIT(A)”], dated 21.04.2023, which in turn arises out of penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 30.06.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra, Padampua vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Kailash Heights

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 424/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A)&For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 24Section 253(3)

assessee has failed to fulfil the same, hence no benefit under section 11(2) is allowed to the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act, 1961 are initiated separately for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particular of income." Since it is well known fact that

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 703/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ald Automotive Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes on the afore-said terms of earlier year

ITA 6386/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6386/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-3(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Ald Automotive Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 13, Floor, Maker 400020. Chamber-Iv, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca0924K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Agrawal Revenue By: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, Mumbai Dated 25.07.2017 For The Ay 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That This Is A Second Round Before This Tribunal. In The First Round, The Tribunal Has Passed Order (Ita. No.6386/Mum/2017) By Order Dated 10.04.2019 Wherein The Tribunal Had Adjudicated Ground No. 1 Preferred By The Revenue. But Did Not Adjudicate Ground No. 2 Preferred By Revenue. Therefore, The Revenue Preferred Miscellaneous Application (Ma) No. 573/Mum/2019 Which Was Decided On 02.06.2021, Wherein Tribunal Was Pleased To Recall The Order Passed In The First Round Dated 10.04.2019 For The Limited Purpose Of Adjudicating Ground No. 2. Thus, This Appeal Has Come Up For Hearing For The Limited Purpose Of Adjudicating Ground No. 2 Which Reads As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Nadkarni (DR)
Section 143(3)

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

Skf India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1746/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Ms. Sailee V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 145A

amount of Rs 7,19,241 under sections 254C of the Act. 2:6 Initiation of proceedings for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act The learned AO erred in initiating proceedings for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c ... disposed off as being consequential. Ground No. 2.6 10. 10.1. Ground No. 2.6 pertaining to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is disposed off as being premature. Ground No. 3 11. 11.1. Ground No. 3 is disposed off as being general in nature. First Additional

Mesers Arya Model School, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 553/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

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

Mesers Arya Model High School, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions), Jalandhar Ward, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 552/ASR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

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

Shrimati Baneet Kaur Bhasin, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

ITA 251/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 246/Asr/2014 & Ita No. 251/Asr/2018 Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69

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