“ Section 271(1)(c) ”

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

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.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

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.

328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court

1,183

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

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.

73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court

953

292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court

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

812

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

“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.

73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court

791

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.

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.

331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court

694

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

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.

434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court

672

ITA 2693/CHNY/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1998-99

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)

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

ITA 2692/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 (Appeals) 13, Chennai, all dated 17.07.2018 in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] relevant to the assessment years 2001-02 & 2002-03 in the case of Shri ... appreciate that there was neither concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer did not record any satisfaction that the assessee had concealed

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

ITA 2691/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

ITA 2976/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. V. Balaji (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

good faith and with due diligence, and therefore it was not a case of deemed concealment in terms of Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8.3 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal and to submit

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 858/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

ITA 857/MUM/2022[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

ITA 856/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

ITA 855/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

ITA 854/MUM/2022[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

ITA 853/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai vs. Hemendra Merchant, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

ITA 812/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

ITA 811/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

ITA 810/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

ITA 809/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

ITA 808/MUM/2022[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-2003

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

ITA 807/MUM/2022[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Hemendra Ranchooddas Merchant, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Cen-Circle 6(2). Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as partly for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue except assessment year of 2005-06 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

ITA 2544/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

M/S A & A Hotels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharya & A Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jt. Cit (Osd), Circle-1(1) 6/A Sindhu House, Aaykar Bhavan Naanbhoy Lane, Fort, Mumbai- 400020 Mumbai 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aafca8628J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Prakash Jotwani Respondent By : Avneesh Tiwari Date Of Hearing 29.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Avneesh Tiwari

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

ITA No.2544/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 1 A and A Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jt. CIT(OSD), Circle-1(1) IN

Rameshkumar Jawanmalji Sakaria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2492/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Megha Bhargav

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

Assessment Year 2010-11, whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the order, dated 30.10.2018, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) levying penalty of INR 2,38,048/-. Assessment Year ... under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was framed on the Appellant vide order dated 10.02.2016. Penalty proceedings, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated against the Appellant on this issue as notice, dated 10.02.2016, was issued under Section 274 read with

M/S. D.R. Plastics, Mumbai vs. ITO WD, 21(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1542/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S D.R. Plastics Vs. Ito, Ward 21(1)(4) 26, Ideal Industrial Piramal Chambers Estate, Madhuradas Mumbai - 400012 Compound Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfd7223N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: MrugakshiFor Respondent: Megha Bhargav

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271(1)(C).” On perusal of the aforesaid notice it is clear that A.O has not specified that penalty is being levied on account of concealment of particulars ... case of Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh as referred supra wherein the relevant part of the head not is reproduced as under: “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Penalty For concealment of income (Recording of satisfaction) Whether where assessment order clearly records satisfaction

DCIT -32(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Adinathay Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1508/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1508/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Adinathya Dcit- 32(1), Enterprises, R. No. 702, 7Th Floor, बिधम/ Shop No. 6, Harjas Chs Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Ltd. Divine Home Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra Colony, Borivali (W)M (East), Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 103 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaqfa1188F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Dumane, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 26.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 22.12.2021, Passed By Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Dumane, Ld