← 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)

M/S Arya Model High School, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 60/ASR/2017[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

M/S Arya Model High School, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 13/ASR/2017[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

The Income-Tax Officer, Jalandhar vs. Smt. Baneet Kaur Bhasin, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

ITA 263/ASR/2014[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

Smt. Baneet Kaur Bhasin, Jalandhar vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessment ITA No

ITA 246/ASR/2014[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

Pramila Tarneja, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) (International Taxation), New Delhi

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

ITA 7115/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Pramila Tarneja, Assessee in PersonFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Pramila Tarneja, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) (International Taxation), New Delhi

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

ITA 7114/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Pramila Tarneja, Assessee in PersonFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Pramila Tarneja, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) (International Taxation), New Delhi

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

ITA 7113/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Ms. Pramila Tarneja, Assessee in PersonFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Prashant Manohar Bhagwat, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 86/RPR/2023[2014-5]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 86/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prashant Manohar Bhagwat H. No.11, South Avenue, Choubey Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Ahfpb6105K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 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

Gauri Dhirenkumar Shah, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 394/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.394 & 388/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Gauri Dhirenkumar Shah Income Tax Officer, 1, Brahamin Faliya, Ward-1(4), Vs Ladeshwar, Bharuch Nr. Swaminarayan Temple, Bharuch-392011 Pan No: Ahnps 2989 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

assessee has challenged the addition made in quantum assessment, however, in ITA No.388/SRT/2023 the assessee has challenged the confirmation of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 16.05.2019. Since the facts in both the appeals are common ... quantum assessment has been restored back to the file of Assessing Officer, therefore at this stage, the penalty levied by Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 16.05.2019 will not survive. Hence, the appeal of assessee is allowed, however, the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty

Gauri Dhirenkumar Shah, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(4), Bharuch

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

ITA 388/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.394 & 388/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Gauri Dhirenkumar Shah Income Tax Officer, 1, Brahamin Faliya, Ward-1(4), Vs Ladeshwar, Bharuch Nr. Swaminarayan Temple, Bharuch-392011 Pan No: Ahnps 2989 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

assessee has challenged the addition made in quantum assessment, however, in ITA No.388/SRT/2023 the assessee has challenged the confirmation of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 16.05.2019. Since the facts in both the appeals are common ... quantum assessment has been restored back to the file of Assessing Officer, therefore at this stage, the penalty levied by Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 16.05.2019 will not survive. Hence, the appeal of assessee is allowed, however, the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty

Bhawarlal Tarachandji Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 1730/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1729 & 1730/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Rashesh P PatelFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(4)(c)

failed to appreciate that there is neither concealment of particulars of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) is bad in law. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the appellant was involved in hawala transaction and just produced accommodation bills

Bhawarlal Tarachandji Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 1729/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1729 & 1730/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Appellant: Rashesh P PatelFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(4)(c)

failed to appreciate that there is neither concealment of particulars of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) is bad in law. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) mentioned that the appellant was involved in hawala transaction and just produced accommodation bills

Rajesh Kalra, Hanumangarh Town vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Bikaner

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

ITA 37/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoterajesh Kalra, Vs. Dcit, Circle – 1, Prop. M/S. Zodiac Bikaner – 334001, Imaging & Diagnostic Rajasthan. Centre, Hanumangarh -335513, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Akapk9599E Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Cit(A) & Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI DR. DIPAK P

Shri Gopal Goushala, Barmer vs. ITO (Exemption), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/JODH/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2016-17 Sh. Gopal Goushala, Income Tax Officer, C/O D. Kansara & Associates, Vs (Exemption), Jodhpur Ca’S 84, Narpat Nagar, Opportunity Shyam Restourant Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj) 342001 Pan: Aaatg2071M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Gopal Goushala Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Jodhpur Dated 12.02.2020 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.That The Lower Authorities Erred In Computing/Sustaining The Assessment Made Ex Parte U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Lower Authorities Erred In Not Allowing Benefits Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The It Act To The Trust Duly Registered U/S 12Aa. 3. That The Lower Authorities Erred In Framing Assessment In The Status Of Aop Instead Of Religious & Charitable Trust.” Sh. Gopal Goushala

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P

Prime Suitings Private Limited, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-4, Bhilwara

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

ITA 440/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Prime Suitings Pvt. Ltd., D- Income Tax Officer, 5-6, Bhilwara Textile Market, Vs Ward-4, Bhilwara Pur Road, Bhilwara Pan: Aaacp8447P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06Th June, 2018 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Passed By Ito, Ward-4, Bhilwara On 30.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P

Devender Mavi, Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1903/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the provisions of section 271(1) (C) is not justify the case of the applicant. 8. That the impugned Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, Noida is a clear ... impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the provisions of section 271(1) (C) is not justify the case of the applicant. 8. That the impugned Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, Noida is a clear

Devender Mavi, Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1902/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the provisions of section 271(1) (C) is not justify the case of the applicant. 8. That the impugned Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, Noida is a clear ... impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the provisions of section 271(1) (C) is not justify the case of the applicant. 8. That the impugned Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, Noida is a clear

Devender Mavi, Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1901/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the provisions of section 271(1) (C) is not justify the case of the applicant. 8. That the impugned Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, Noida is a clear ... impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the provisions of section 271(1) (C) is not justify the case of the applicant. 8. That the impugned Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, Noida is a clear

Devender Mavi, Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1900/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the provisions of section 271(1) (C) is not justify the case of the applicant. 8. That the impugned Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, Noida is a clear ... impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the provisions of section 271(1) (C) is not justify the case of the applicant. 8. That the impugned Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, Noida is a clear

ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi vs. U K Paints India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 904/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2007-08
Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV