“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)

Prakash Industrial Corporation, Mumbai vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh-ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 524/MUM/2022[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja ChhawachhariaFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. Jay Ketan Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1225/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 1(2) V. Jay Ketan Parikh Room No. 906, 9Th Floor 94-D, Thanee Heights Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe 66, Nepean Sea Road Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaipp6681J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

DCIT Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai vs. Raj Hiten Parikh, Mumbai

ITA 1224/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1224 & 1226/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07 & 2007-08) Raj Hiten Parikh Dcit Cen. Cir-1(2), R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Annex 42C, Laxmi Nivas, 87, बिधम/ Building, Pratistha Bhavan, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 006

For Respondent: Shri Anuj, Ld. AR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year 2007-08 on account of peak credit in HSBC Bank. Accordingly, penalty has been levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the assessment years by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the ITAT Mumbai vide order dated ... impugned appeal order from pages 6 to 18. Accordingly, he held that once the quantum itself has been deleted, then penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable and does not survive. 4. In view of the aforesaid fact that when the Tribunal itself has deleted

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. Jay Ketan Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1223/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Dlh Kamla Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC- 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 1373/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1373 & 1374/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Dcit Cen. Cir. -3(4), Dlh Kamla Developers 19Th Floor, Air India Ground Floor, Shanti बनाम/ Vimal, P. M. Road, Vile Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Parle East, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 057 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aahfd0790K (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 22.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)/153A For Ay 2013-14 & Section 143(3) For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

ITA 1540/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 Pan: Aaspp-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.817/Mum/2015 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 01/01/2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. This Appeal Is In The Second Round Before The Tribunal. Earlier This Appeal Of The Assessee Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 19/03/2018. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application, Vide Ma No.271/Mum/2018 Seeking

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi

Section 2(14)Section 48

dated 31/12/2013 is vague, hence defective. The notice has been issued in a Performa without striking off the irrelevant limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Full Bench ... 271(supra) is defective. We find that the said notice (at page-30 of the paper book) is ambiguous. The irrelevant clause of section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been struck off while issuing the notice. The notice mentions both the limbs of section 271(1)(c

Damco International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7447/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Poras Kaka, Sr.Advocate with Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: S/ Shri B.K.Bagchi & Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

No.8 to 10 of the appeal are dismissed. 16. In ground of appeal No.12, the assessee has assailed initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Challenge to penalty proceedings at this stage is premature, hence, ground No.12 of appeal is dismissed. 17. In the result

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

ITA 817/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi

Section 2(14)Section 48

Eit Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 210/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92D

India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 7 of 66 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings a. That the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise. the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

M/S Joy Packaging Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4821/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs. 46,582/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. This appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal initially on 01.12.2021, ex parte, without presence of the assessee. Subsequently the assessee moved

Mr. Real Team System Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1389/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1389/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ito 15(3)(1) M/S Real Team Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Systems Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 1101, Bldg. No. 6, Road, Churchgate, Seawood Estates, Nri Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Complex, Navi Mumbai- 400 706 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr0073Q (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 17.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 17.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.12.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Mumbai In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A

Tekla India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 211/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 40

under Section 234D of the Act 17. erred in upholding the levy of interest under Section 234D of the Act: Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act Trimble Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.211/Mum./2016 18. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c

Sri B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 372/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, The Deputy Srinagar Colony, Commissioner Of Near Arunodhaya Income Tax, Hospital, Central Circle – 1[3], Siriguppa Road, Bangalore. Vs. Bellary. Pan: Afbpr9736C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate : Shri Venudhar Godesi, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 19/01/2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As Levying Penalty U/S 271[1][C] Of The Act Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Penalty Passed U/S 271[1][C] Of The Act Is Bad In Law As The Notice Issued Under Section 274 Rws 271 Of The Act Is Not Discernable Whether The Penalty Proceedings Are Initiated For Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Or Concealment Of Income Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate

Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

discussed in detail by the AO while passing the penalty order. The reasoning given by the AO remains uncontroverted. So the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are squarely attracted in the case of the appellant.” Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal ... should be imposed / cannot be imposed. “63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: a) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. b) Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. c

M/S. Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2570/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Jsw Energy Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1223/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is A Public Company Engaged In The Business Of Generation Of Power & Operation & Maintenance Of The Power Plants, As Also Other Allied Activities. During The Course Of Its Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made A Reference Under Section 92Ca(1), For Determination Of The Arm‟S Length Price Of The International Transactions & Specified Domestic Transaction Entered Into By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes), To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Assessment Year 2014-15 Page 2 Of 17

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

contain specific reference to notice dated 13.02.2017). 15. In regard to non-recording of initiation of penalty proceedings in assessment order, firstly unlike section 271(1)(c), where proceedings is to be initiated in course of assessment such requirement is not needed here since law does not prescribe so. Moreover

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range-8 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6122/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Dcit Central Circle-8(3), 72-7, Kalpatatru Residency 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Tower B, Sion Koliwada Road, Vs. M.K. Road, Sion, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400022. Pan No. Aabpj 3761 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

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