← 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)

Levi Staruss (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 695/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 695/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Levi Strauss (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Sjr Cyber, 7Th Floor, Commissioner Of No. 22, Laskar Hosur Road, Income Tax, Adugodi, Circle 4 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 030. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacl3092Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Act By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 4 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Learned Ao") Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961("The Act") On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 144C

234A, 234B and 234D of the Act, respectively; 24. The learned AO has erred in law and in facts in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves

DCIT-1 (2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2448/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.2447/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) आअसं.2448/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) The Dcit1(2)(1), Room No.535, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd. 66B, Podar Chamber, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aabcp-9574-G ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prateek Jain. सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Vranda U. MatkariFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Jain
Section 271(1)(c)

assessee submitted at the outset that the Department had already filed appeals against the order of CIT(A) dated 21/09/2020 deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 [in short ‘the Act’] for the assessment years ... appeals have been inadvertently filed in duplication. The earlier appeals filed by Department against the orders of CIT(A) deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13 and 2014-15 have been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 06/10/2021. 4. Both sides

DCIT 1(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2447/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं.2447/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) आअसं.2448/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) The Dcit1(2)(1), Room No.535, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Pabal Housing Pvt. Ltd. 66B, Podar Chamber, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Pan: Aabcp-9574-G ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Prateek Jain. सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Ms. Vranda U. MatkariFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Jain
Section 271(1)(c)

assessee submitted at the outset that the Department had already filed appeals against the order of CIT(A) dated 21/09/2020 deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 [in short ‘the Act’] for the assessment years ... appeals have been inadvertently filed in duplication. The earlier appeals filed by Department against the orders of CIT(A) deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13 and 2014-15 have been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 06/10/2021. 4. Both sides