← 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)

DCIT CC 8(2), Mumbai vs. Anil Dhirajlal Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue ITA No

ITA 6229/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri JitendraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

DCIT CC-8(2), Mumbai vs. Anil Dhirajlal Ambani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue ITA No

ITA 6228/MUM/2025[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri JitendraFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Sathyanarayana Saka, Someswaram vs. ITO, NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 589/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 588 & 589/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 & 2015-16) Satyanarayana Saka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Someswaram. Kakinada. Pan: Hlbps2932A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kss Sarma, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 15/07/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 28/09/2022 For Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16. As The Common Issue Is Involved In The Captioned Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Satyanarayana Saka Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Shri KSS Sarma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 15/07/2025 which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 28/09/2022 for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16. As the common ... dated 30/03/2023 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.26.45 lakhs. Also, the AO while culminating the assessment initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 28/09/2022 imposed a penalty

Sathyanarayana Saka, Someswaram vs. ITO, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 588/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 588 & 589/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 & 2015-16) Satyanarayana Saka, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Someswaram. Kakinada. Pan: Hlbps2932A (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kss Sarma, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 02/12/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 15/07/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Orders Passed By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 28/09/2022 For Ay 2014-15 & Ay 2015-16. As The Common Issue Is Involved In The Captioned Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Satyanarayana Saka Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Shri KSS Sarma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 15/07/2025 which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 28/09/2022 for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16. As the common ... dated 30/03/2023 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.26.45 lakhs. Also, the AO while culminating the assessment initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 28/09/2022 imposed a penalty

Bhavna Shetalkumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1103/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

facts in not providing cross examination of persons whose statement has been relied on. 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. 7. Charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C is unjustified. 11. The assessee also filed following additional grounds

Joseph Abraham Peter Joseph, Madurai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Revenue Building, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2722/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.M. Muriga Boopathy, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section

Rupa Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 4750/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4750/Mum/2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT

Cambridge Construction (Delhi) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4939/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandracambridge Construction Vs. Ito, Ward 5(3) (Delhi) Private Limited New Delhi – 110002 11, Monnet House, Masjid Moth, New Delhi – 110048 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacc0295N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. VK Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

P a g e | 1 Cambridge Construction (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2013-14) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

Hari Narayan Borkataky, Tinsukia vs. ITO Ward - 1, Tinsukia

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/GTY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati04 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bench Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 R.W.S. 144 Read With Section 263 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Date Of The Order Passing The Appeal Order Is 14/05/2025. Being Aggrieved By The Order, The Appellant Wanted To Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Due To Be Filed On Or Before 31Th July 2025. However, Due To Unavoidable Circumstances, The Appeal Was Filed Only On 9Th October, 2025 With A Delay Of 70 Days.

Section 144BSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY

Hari Narayan Borkataky, Tinsukia vs. ITO Ward - 1, Tinsukia

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 305/GTY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati04 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: The Hon'Ble Bench Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 R.W.S. 144 Read With Section 263 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Date Of The Order Passing The Appeal Order Is 14/05/2025. Being Aggrieved By The Order, The Appellant Wanted To Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Due To Be Filed On Or Before 31Th July 2025. However, Due To Unavoidable Circumstances, The Appeal Was Filed Only On 9Th October, 2025 With A Delay Of 70 Days.

Section 144BSection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY

Dream Infrastructure, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 220/RJT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 220/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dream Infrastructure, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mavdi Survey No. 358, B/H. Mavdi Ward-1(1)(1), Village, Kankot Road, Mavdi, Rajkot Rajkot-360004(Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfd2565L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SMC BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA

Amit Kumar Verma, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6(1), Patna

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

ITA 357/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA [Virtual Court] Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

Vanmalibhai Muljibhai Patel L/H Ranjanben Deepakbhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 5, Navsari

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

ITA 345/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.345/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Vanmalibhai Muljibhai Patel, Vs. Ito, L/H Of Ranjanben Deepakbhai Patel Ward - 5, 16, Shrinikunj Society, Ashabaug, Navsari Navsari - 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abjpp3114G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 251(1)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Bhagwat Prasad Malviya, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(1), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 456/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya Ito -3(1) 28, Crp Phatak Road Bhopal बनाम/ Bairagarh, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afbpm8998M Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 548Section 54B

rightly disallowed. This ground is, therefore, dismissed. 9.16 Ground 4: That the AO was not justified in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 9.17 This ground is premature as the penalty order, if any, is a separate proceeding. The mere initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c

Pancharam Verma, Barabanki vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department/Income Tax Officer, Range-5(4), Barabanki

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

ITA 622/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

made addition of Rs.63,06,000/- under section 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Vide penalty order dated 31/08/2023 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, penalty amounting to Rs.19,48,554/- was levied

Pancharam Verma, Barabanki vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department/Income Tax Officer, Range-5(4), Barabanki

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

ITA 621/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

made addition of Rs.63,06,000/- under section 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Vide penalty order dated 31/08/2023 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, penalty amounting to Rs.19,48,554/- was levied

T.L. Sritharan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-14, Chennai

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

ITA 2634/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2634/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Asst. Commissioner Of New No.13, Old No.1, Vs. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non Corporate Circle-14, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 033. Pan: Aepps 6766J

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 50C

c) of the Act in the assessment order. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the A.O. has not specified under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty has been initiated whether for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. He also argued

Balaram Vengadessan, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 2471/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (virtual)
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

orrer anitette after, w wzaariis, dag IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI ft aa aa faga vie

Balaram Vengadessan, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 2470/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (virtual)
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

orrer anitette after, w wzaariis, dag IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI ft aa aa faga vie

Shibu Roy, Rongpur, Cachar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Silchar

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

c) ITA No. 299/Gty/2025 The Ld. CIT(A) through order dated 07.08.2025, passed the impugned order in response to order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act passed by the Ld. AO. (d) ITA No. 300/GTY/2025 The Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order dated 07.08.2025 against the order