← 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 Chirag Rajendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1927/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

c) of the Act, stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty 4 ITA.NO. 1926 & 1927/MUM/2021 Chirag R. Shah made

Shri Chirag Rajendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1926/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

c) of the Act, stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty 4 ITA.NO. 1926 & 1927/MUM/2021 Chirag R. Shah made

Yash Vardhan Arya, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation) Ward-1(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 203/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “SMC-B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, Judicial Member ITA No.203/Bang/2022

Jeni Ahay Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(1) (C), Vashi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1930/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalejeni Abhay Shah Vs. Ito – 27(1)(5) 902, A Wing, Bldg Vashi Rly Station No.88, R.S. Money, Navi Mumabi – Supermarket, Vrushali 400701. Apartments, Tilak Nagar, Mumbai – 400089. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Axvps3431M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri S.N.Kabra.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Jeni Abhay Shah, Mumbai 1. The Ld. Ao Erred On Facts & In Law In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) On Adhoc & On Unverified Presumptive Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.N.kabra.Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Mrs Mamta Sharad Gupta, Thane vs. The ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1553/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Phadke, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kanhiya Lal Kanak, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH

Sri. Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2474/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

ITA No.1910 & 2474/Bang/2019 Sri Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

Sri Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1910/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

ITA No.1910 & 2474/Bang/2019 Sri Venkateswara Developers, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

ADIT(It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1826/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2001-2002
For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Kanojiya (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee to hide or conceal income so as to avoid the imposition of tax thereon. In order that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) may be imposed, it has to be proved that the assessee has consciously made concealment or furnished inaccurate particulars.” 4.2 So from the above

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 249/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Singh and Co. is also not very important because that was in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 when Explanation 4 to Section 271 (1) ((c) was not in existence. The view of this Court in Horprasods case (supra) Leads to the irresistible conclusion that income also includes Losses ... income assessed. " 10. A combined reading of the Committee's ecommendations and the Circular makes the position clear that Explanation 4(a) to Section 271 (1) (c) intended to levy the penalty not only in a case where after addition of concealed income, a loss returned, after assessment becomes positive

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 248/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Singh and Co. is also not very important because that was in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 when Explanation 4 to Section 271 (1) ((c) was not in existence. The view of this Court in Horprasods case (supra) Leads to the irresistible conclusion that income also includes Losses ... income assessed. " 10. A combined reading of the Committee's ecommendations and the Circular makes the position clear that Explanation 4(a) to Section 271 (1) (c) intended to levy the penalty not only in a case where after addition of concealed income, a loss returned, after assessment becomes positive

Kshema Geo Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 598/BANG/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rajinish Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Praveen Karanth, CIT -DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(viia)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

Salasar Derivatives Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(1) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1916/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ld. Ao On 29/05/2018 Being The Scheduled Date Of Hearing. However, On 30/05/2018, The Assessee Had Duly Appeared & Submitted The Relevant Papers Physically Before The Ld. Ao. However, The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Levy Penalty U/S.271(1)(B) Of The Act For Non-Compliance On The Scheduled Date Of Hearing & Levied Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- Thereon Vide Order U/S.271(1)(B) Of The Act Dated 13/05/2019. This Penalty Was Upheld By The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s

Rajendra Tubes & Fittings, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for both the assessment years, since no change in facts or law could be brought to our notice

ITA 1513/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

Rajendra Tubes & Fittings, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for both the assessment years, since no change in facts or law could be brought to our notice

ITA 1512/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

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

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 374/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

refund - INR 113,126 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings That the AO have erred in facts and law in initiating proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 5. Relief That the Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief and arising from the above grounds

M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 191/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

refund - INR 113,126 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings That the AO have erred in facts and law in initiating proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 5. Relief That the Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief and arising from the above grounds

M/S. Sangeeta Metal (India), Mumbai vs. ACIT -19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 141/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () M/S Sangeeta Metal (India) Vs Acit-19(3), Mumbai Room No.206, 2Nd Floor, Matru 26/24, Ground Floor, 6B/1 Sindhi Lane, Mumbai-400 004 Mandir Building, Tardeo Road Pan : Aaffs6604P Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent

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

purchases made as per information from sales-tax department and other ancillary ground being interest under sections 234B and 234C alongwith penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 3. There was delay in filing the appeal. The managing partner of the assessee had filed a duly sworn ... profit margin on such purchases of Rs.22,00,556/- at 12.5% and made addition of the same. Penalty proceedings were also initiated under section 271(1)(c). Aggrieved by this, the assessee was in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed

Chiron Behring Vaccines P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2705/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Harsh SangoiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(1)Section 5(2)Section 6

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the penalty order dated 30.03.2014, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment Year: 2007-08 2. Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before us submitted that the quantum appeal for the Assessment ... record (a) declaration and undertaking in Form 1 wherein disclosure was made about the present appeal pertaining to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, (b) certificate in Form 3 issued under Section 5(1) of the DTVSV Act [Acknowledgement No. 233461100300121] and (c) order

M/S Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 35/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 92C

warranty to book profits. (vii) Ground Nos.46 to 50 - Disallowance of advertisement and business promotion expenditure. (viii) Other ground regarding initiation of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. TP adjustment relating to manufacturing segment : 4. In the manufacturing segment, the tax payer applied internal CUP method as the Most

M/S. Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision India Private Limited ( Earlier Known As Abbott Medical Optics Private Limited), Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 84/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 84/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/. Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Abbott Medical Optics Pvt. Ltd.), The Income-Tax The Masterpiece, Officer, Level 5, Golf Course Road, Ward – 11(1), Sector – 54, Bangalore. Vs. Gurgaon – 122 002. Haryana. Pan: Aaeca8659C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajit Tolani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 05.11.2011 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-4, Bangalore For A.Y. 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-4, Bangalore [‘Ld. Cit(A)'] & The Learned Income-Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Bangalore (`Ld. Ao') To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Are Bad In Law, Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Tolani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 3Section 92C

facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Ld.AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the Appellant has acted in a bona fide manner and provided all necessary details called