← 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)

Shri Sudin Mahadev Sangodkar, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman Ward, Daman

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

ITA 207/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Sudin Mahadev Sangodkar, I.T.O., House No. 46B, 1/5 Next To Fab Ward-Daman Vs. India, Alta Mapusa, Bardez, Daman. North Goa, Goa-403507. Ph.9423530599 Email: Smsangodcar@Gmail.Com Pan No. Ajjps 0830 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 156Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 23/01/2023 which in turn arises from the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) vide order dated 22/06/2018 by the ITO, Ward-Daman, Daman for the Assessment

Right Tight Fastners Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-11(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 684/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

added the amount to the book profits computed under section 115JB. 3. The Assessing Officer subsequently issued a notice initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that by claiming a 3 ITA 684/Mum/2023 M/s Right Tight Fastners Pvt Ltd deduction under section 80IC ... irrelevant clause was not struck off. The Ld.AR submitted that it is a well accepted proposition that out of the two limbs of section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer has to strike off the irrelevant clause since they carry different 5 ITA 684/Mum/2023 M/s Right Tight Fastners

M/S Ramnarain and Co., Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 347/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

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

Rs.7,16,843/- while completing the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) by issuing a show cause notice for the reason that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and that the quantum appeal ... Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions of the assessee and by relying on various judicial pronouncements, held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs.2

Mane Finance Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 346/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2023AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Minaketan Samal, Greater Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5276/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Sri Vijaya Kumar Janardhanan Nair, Kollam vs. ACIT Circle, Kollam

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

ITA 915/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 915/Coch/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vijaya Kumar Janardhanan बनाम/ Acit, Kollam Nair Kerala. Vs. X-15-1299, Sree Janardhana Complex, Residency Road, Kollam-691001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acrpn5993Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, (Ca) Revenue By: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee An Individual Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 12.08.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee For Ay 2016-17 Had Filed His Return Of Income Reflecting An Income Of Rs.83,97,670/- Which Was Scrutinized U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act’) & Assessment Order Was Passed On 10.12.2018 By Making An Addition Of Rs.51,52,151/- U/S 68 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & After Hearing The Assessee, The Penalty Of Rs.17,01,706/- Was Levied By Order Dated 27.06.2019. Penalty Levied By Ao Was Assailed Before The Ld. Cit(A) On 20.07.2019 & While The Appeal Was Adjudicated Before The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Offered For Settlement Of Dispute Under The Direct Taxes Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2020 On 20.02.2021. & The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, (CA)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM

Lenient Consultants P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida

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

ITA 1704/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 251(1)Section 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Ravi Kumar and Company, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT- Circle-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 149/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year : 2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

DCIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

ITA 162/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Satyajit GoelFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R
Section 144Section 144C(4)Section 271(1)(c)

161/Del/2021 [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)] dated 28.01.2021 for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in sustaining the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The Revenue has raised the following common grounds in both these appeals except ... Gold Coin Health Care Limited that even where the assessed income and returned income both are at loss penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that since the income was assessed under MAT provisions

DCIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Revenue, are dismissed

ITA 161/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Satyajit GoelFor Respondent: [CIT] – D. R
Section 144Section 144C(4)Section 271(1)(c)

161/Del/2021 [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)] dated 28.01.2021 for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 in sustaining the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The Revenue has raised the following common grounds in both these appeals except ... Gold Coin Health Care Limited that even where the assessed income and returned income both are at loss penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that since the income was assessed under MAT provisions

Arun Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 35(8), New Delhi

In the result the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1204/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: V. Rajkuamr, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D. R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

1 Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI ANIL

Sh. Praveen Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the 24 appeals of the two assessees are allowed

ITA 1652/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA

Sh. Praveen Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the 24 appeals of the two assessees are allowed

ITA 1651/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA

Sh. Praveen Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the 24 appeals of the two assessees are allowed

ITA 1650/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA

Sh. Praveen Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the 24 appeals of the two assessees are allowed

ITA 1649/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA

Sh. Praveen Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the 24 appeals of the two assessees are allowed

ITA 1648/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA

Sh. Praveen Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result all the 24 appeals of the two assessees are allowed

ITA 1647/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA

Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the 24 appeals of the two assessees are allowed

ITA 1637/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA

Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the 24 appeals of the two assessees are allowed

ITA 1636/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA

Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the 24 appeals of the two assessees are allowed

ITA 1635/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. ASTHA