“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 Krishna Knitwear Technology Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 1084/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jasdeep Singh, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 7

basis of assessment framed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and thereby levied the penalty which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Assessee companies carried the matter before

M/S Krishna Knitwear Technology Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 1083/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jasdeep Singh, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 7

M/S Kg Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 1024/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jasdeep Singh, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 7

M/S K-Lifestyle & Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 1021/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jasdeep Singh, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 7

The ITO-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. A B Color Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2928/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 3(1)(1) V. M/S. A.B. Color Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 666, 6Th Floor 901, Maker Chamber V Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narimanpoint, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca3373K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S

M/S Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 107/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. 11. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 11.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings ... under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The DRP has erred in dismissing the Appellant's objection against initiation of penalty proceedings. 12. Relief 12.1. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all reliefs consequential thereto

M/S Teej Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Ward 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 643/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 643/मुं/2022("न.व. 2012-13) M/S. Teej Impex Pvt.Ltd. 4 Anna Bhuvan 3Rd Floor, 87C Devji Ratansi Marg, Dana Bunder, Mumbai 400 009 Pan: Aabct-9976-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward 8(3)(1) Mumbai. Mumbai. Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Dr. P.Daniel ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ In Short ‘The Cit(A) Dated 30/03/2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13,In Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Dr. P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ ई ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम बालगणेश, लेखाकार सद

Manoj Tekriwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 24(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4147/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR CIT

Section 14ASection 234ASection 250Section 40Section 54

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-20(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Govindji Chauhan, Mumbai

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

ITA 814/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 20(1) Vs. Ashok Govindji Room No. 619, Chauhan, 6Th Floor, Piramal B 301, Veena Beena Chambers, Parel, Chs Ltd., Acharya Dome Mumbai – 400012. Marg, Sewree Mumbai – 400014. Pan/Gir No. Aabpc7897A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Krishna Kumar.Dr Respondent By : Ms .Vasanti Patel.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Krishna Kumar.DRFor Respondent: Ms .Vasanti Patel.AR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Shri. Swapnil Bobhate, Thane vs. ITO Ward 28 (3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 18/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Khushiram JadhwaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sudha Ramchandran

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PROMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

M/S. Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2579/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2579/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Subex Ltd., The Deputy Rmz Ecoworld, Commissioner Of Outer Ring Road, Income Tax, Devarabisanahalli, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Erroneous Transfer Pricing Adjustments Arising From Interest On Trade Receivables 1.1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 6(1)(2), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer' Or 'Ld. Ao') / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Circle - 1(3)(1) ('Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA

Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 6.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings ... under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The DRP has erred in dismissing the Appellant's objection against initiation of penalty proceedings. 7. Relief 7.1 The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all reliefs consequential thereto

M/S. Rolex Lanolin Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

ITA 271/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 271 & 272/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Cit(A), Mumbai M/S Rolex Lanolin Products Ltd. बिधम/ 14, Old Tejpal Ind. Estate, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacr3499P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Chovatia Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 07.07.2022 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 06.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Chovatia Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं

Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 49, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 17/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Raigad Darshan (Appeals)–49 Oppsite Indian Oil Company, 605, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. J.P. Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aagcs5014B Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, DR

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 68

Shiva Shakti Enclave P Ltd; A.Y. 2009–10 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the invoking of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C) of the income Tax Act 1961. 7. The assessee craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2445/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. D. B. Shah. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Hoshang B. Irani.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2444/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. D. B. Shah. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Hoshang B. Irani.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2443/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. D. B. Shah. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Hoshang B. Irani.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Sailesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. D. B. Shah. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Hoshang B. Irani.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Ntt Data Information Processing Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 297/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)

learned AO has erred, in law and in facts, in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another.” 2. At the time of hearing, assessee

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pte.Ltd ., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT(International Tax)Circle-3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 742/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Is A Company Incorporated In & Fiscally Domiciled In, The Republic Of Singapore. During The Relevant Previous Year, The Assessee Company Provided Bushing & Fabrication Services To Its

Section 143(3)

ITA Nos.: 2049/Mum/2016, 5731/Mum/2019, and 742/Mum/2021 Assessment years: 2012-13, 2016-17 and 2017-18 Page 1 of 11 INCOME

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT (It) Circle-3 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 5731/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us Is A Company Incorporated In & Fiscally Domiciled In, The Republic Of Singapore. During The Relevant Previous Year, The Assessee Company Provided Bushing & Fabrication Services To Its

Section 143(3)

ITA Nos.: 2049/Mum/2016, 5731/Mum/2019, and 742/Mum/2021 Assessment years: 2012-13, 2016-17 and 2017-18 Page 1 of 11 INCOME