← 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)

Smt. Shobha Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1764/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Shobha Sekhari, Vs Acit, 448-451, Chinmin Farms, Central Circle-15, Village Satbari, New Delhi. Mehrauli, New Delhi. Pan: Aatps1222M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri H.K. Chaudhary, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11Th January, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Years 2010-11. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.46,03,531/- Made By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, 1961 & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issued Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act Was Carried Out By The Investigation Wing Of The Department On 11.11.2010 In Tinna Group Of Cases Including The Assessee. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Act On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,28,60,948/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs.5,38,413/-. The Addition Was Made On Account Of Capital Gain Of Rs.2,23,03,125/- On Transfer Of A Land Measuring 39 Bighas Situated At Village Rojka Gujjar Distt. Sohna (Haryana). While Doing So, The Ao Rejected The Claim Of This Land As Agricultural Land On Which An Amount Of Rs.29,410/- Was Shown As Agricultural Income. The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed By The Cit(A). The Ao, Thereafter, Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. Rejecting The Various Explanations Given By The Assessee, The Ao Levied Penalty Of Rs.46,03,531/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld The Action Of The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA