← 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)

ITO - 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Chanvim Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3594/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3594/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito-6(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Chanvim Enginering (I) 5Th Floor, Room No.513, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 3, Nanji Bldg, A.D. Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Sewree, Mumbai-400012. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc4729P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian Revenue By: Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Mumbai Dated 25.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Act Of Rs.2,01,00,000/- (Accommodation Entry Of Loan) & Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,02,000/- U/S 69C Of The Act (Commission). 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.28,43,280/-. The Ao Notes That The A.Y.2013-14 Chanvim Engg. (I) Pvt. Ltd. Assessee Is Engaged In The Activity Of Manufacturing Aluminium Roll Bond Evaporator Panel & Assessee Has Shown The Income From Profit & Gains From Business & Profession. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny. According To The Ao, He Received An Information From The Office Of Investigation Wing, Mumbai That The Assessee Has Availed The Accommodation Entry From Bhanwarlal Jain Group Who Gives Accommodation Entry.

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकर