“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)

Snehal Ravjibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1418/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(c)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand Vasant

Mr. Bharat Natwarlal Dave, Nadiad Kheda vs. ITO Ward 1, Dhule

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

ITA 289/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.289/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Bharat Natwarlal Dave, V The Income Tax Officer, A/5 Harikunj Society, S Ward-1, Dhule. Opp.Sanket Society, Vaishali Cinema Road, Nadiad Kheda, Gujarat – 387002. Pan: Ahkpd0928P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Aakash Parakh Revenue By Shri Manish M. Mehta Date Of Hearing 06/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2013-14 On 01.12.2021 Emanating From Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, Dated 21.06.2019 Which In Turn Arises From Assessment Order Dated 24.12.2018. Ita No.289/Pun/2025 [A] Findings & Analysis : 2. We Have Heard Both The Parties & Perused The Records. In This Case, Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, Has Been Levied For A.Y.2013-14 On 21.06.2019. In This Case, It Is Mentioned In The Penalty Order That Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, Determining Total Income At Rs.12,66,840/- Vide Assessment Order Dated 24.12.2018. 3. It Has Been Brought To Our Notice That The Assessee’S Appeal Against Assessment Order Has Been Set-Aside By Itat To Ld.Cit(A) For Denovo Adjudication. We Have Gone Through The Itat Pune Bench Decision In Ita No.288/Pun/2025 For A.Y.2013-14, Wherein

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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”ए” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Archana Muralidhar Bhandwalkar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1840/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

A.Y.2016-17 dated 28.05.2025 and 14.07.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 of the Act, dated 23.03.2023 and Penalty Order under section 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, dated 19.09.2023.For the sake of convenience, these two appeals were heard together and are being disposed

Archana Muralidhar Bhandwalkar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1615/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 14Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

Appaso Sampatrao Mane, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 1006/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Huhtamaki Food Services Packaging India P Ltd (Erstwhile Known As M/S. Valpack Solutions P Ltd), Thane vs. ACIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6064/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailhuhtamaki Foodservice Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As ‘M/S. Valpack Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), 54/B, Hissa No.3A, Jangid Commercial Point S No.54 B Hissa No.3A Jangid C, Vadpe B.O. ............... Appellant Dhamangaon, Thane – 421302 Pan : Aaecv1431D V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1)(1)., ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2015-16. 2 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: “1 ... that they were capital in nature.” 3. The first issue that arises for our consideration pertains to the levy of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the disallowance of expenditure incurred by the assessee for an increase in authorised share capital

Mr. Manoj Kumar Panchamlal Kesharwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the quantum appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and the penalty appeal is allowed

ITA 5671/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act 1961, in relation to the quantum assessments, and (ii) the order dated 21 July 2025 imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act arising therefrom. One of the appeals also challenges the order dated 10 March 2025. Since the issues in all three appeals emanate ... assessee reasonably understands, grant adequate opportunity of hearing, and thereafter reframe the assessments strictly in accordance with law. 5. The penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is based on the very quantum additions that now stand remanded. Once the foundation for the penalty has been set aside, the superstructure

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Panchamlal Kesarwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the quantum appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and the penalty appeal is allowed

ITA 5670/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Panchamlal Kesarwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the quantum appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and the penalty appeal is allowed

ITA 5669/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Officer 19.1.1, Piramal Chamber Lal Baug vs. A J Diam, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3845/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

furnish accurate particulars of the income and relevant evidences by the assessee, even at the penalty proceedings, which attracts the provision of section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ? 3. Whether on the facts ... Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 479/2014, which reinforces the Revenue Authority to impose penalties under section 271(1)(c), in the cases WHARE the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations for discrepancies in their accounts even if the addition

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

Ahmedabad- Trib.) dated 26.8.2025 Snehalkumar Bhogilal Trivedi vs. NFAC 8. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: A SECTION 271(1)(c) OF THE ACT SUPREME COURT i) 242 Taxman 180 (SC) CIT v. SSA'S Emerald Meadows SLP Dismissed [arising out of CIT v. SSA'S Emerald ... found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. Dcti CC 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3280/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

Vasudev Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT CC 1 Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3279/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

Ess Gee Trendz Private Limited, Peeragarhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3014/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68

reassessment proceedings initiated for assessment year 2015-16 are hereby quashed. 10. Since the quantum assessment itself is quashed, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act would have no legs to stand and also deserve to be quashed. 11. In the result, the appeals

Ess Gee Trendz Private Limited, Peeragarhi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3013/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68

Ess Gee Trendz Private Limited, Peeragarhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3012/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68

Ess Gee Trendz Private Limited, Peeragarhi vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3011/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68

Cane Development Council Titawi, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are

ITA 2615/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2612/Del/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Cane Deveopment Council बनाम Income Tax Officer, Rohana Kalan, Ward 1(2), Vs. C/O Dinesh Mohan, Advocate, Muzaffarnagar, 2-Anand Vihar, Lane No.1, Uttar Pradesh. Circular Road, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaalc0277F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 271(1)(c)

directed against the separate orders of ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Facts in all these appeals are almost similar except variation of figure of penalty, thus, with the consent of parties ... account of difference in Masfault/Imulsation, which cannot be treated as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars as per the provision of section 271(1)(c). 6. That the information filed and the material available on record are not properly considered and as such the order imposing penalty

Cane Development Council Rohana Kalan, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are

ITA 2613/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Section 271(1)(c)

Cane Development Council Rohana Kalan, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are

ITA 2612/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Section 271(1)(c)