← 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)

Nec Technologies India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As Nec India Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT, Special Range-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 6982/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Nec Technologies India P. Ltd., The Addl. Cit, Special Range-6, C.R (Formerly Knows As Nec India P Ltd.), Building, New Delhi 110002 101 To 116, 1St Floor, Splendor Forum, Vs. Plot No. 3, District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi 110025 Pan Aaccn 3496 J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Revenue For : Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi Dated 21.05.2019 For Ay 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Assessee Are As Follows:- 1. That The Order Passed By The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Ranged (Ld. Cit(A) Ao') Us 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) In The Name Of "Nec Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Nec India Pvt. Ltd.), The Amalgamating Entity, Which Had Ceased To Exist In The Eyes Of Law, Is Beyond Jurisdiction, Illegal & Bad In Law 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Is Barred By Limitation, Bad In Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed. 3. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Disallowing Advances (I.E. Input Cenvat Credit) To The Tune Of Rs. 91,81,394/- Which The Appellant Was Constrained To Write Off During The Year Under Consideration As Per The Direction Of Service Tax Department;

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 144C(13)Section 274Section 30Section 36Section 37(1)

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