← 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)

Seetha Balu, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Chennai

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

ITA 2255/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

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

are stehe afteru, ‘sd =onite, dag! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI Sf utel ulel &, sone ud

Seetha Balu, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Chennai

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

ITA 2254/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadish

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

are stehe afteru, ‘sd =onite, dag! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI Sf utel ulel &, sone ud

Singaravel Raja, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Villupuram

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

ITA 2172/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2172/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Singaravel Raja, The Income Tax Officer, 5/459, Pandur Village, Main Road, Vs. Ward-1, Pandur P.O., Ulundurpet Tk, Villupuram. Villupuram – 606 102. Pan: Aoopr 0652P

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Jain, C.A GHFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao, JCIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

inaccurate particulars thereof. Since the assessee did not comply with the notices issued, the A.O levied a penalty of Rs.21,64,916/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ... have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The A.O had levied a penalty of Rs.21,64,916/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. We note that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Jayapriya Company, Chennai

ITA 1899/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Mangal Singh Rathore, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax Circle 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed

ITA 5368/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 30.07.2025 in confirming penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/-, levied under section 271(1)(c) dated 23.03.2018 for A.Y. 2009-10. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused ... penalty was sustained. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that it is settled position in the law that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on the addition/disallowances made or sustained on estimation basis. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the decision the following

Rnt Associates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5221/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Vishal ShahFor Respondent: 29/10/2025
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

notional interest income at 15.50%, amounting to ₹53.28 lakhs, and simultaneously initiated 15.50%, amounting to 53.28 lakhs, and simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Pursuant penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Pursuant penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c ... Court further observed that the two of natural justice. The Hon’ble Court further observed that the two limbs under Section 271(1)(c) are distinct and m limbs under Section 271(1)(c) are distinct and mutually exclusive, utually exclusive, and that a vague or omnibus notice is incurably

Avance Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -2(1), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of

ITA 4885/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 15.07.2025 in confirming penalty of Rs. 26,02,441/-, levied under section 271(1)(c) dated 28.02.2023 for A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal however substantial grounds of appeal relates to validity of penalty ... levied under section 271(1)(c) being illegal and not tenable under the law. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has three fold submissions, (i) that assessing officer has not specified charge

Vinayak Pai, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2539/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Vinayak Ganpat Pai National Faceless Centre (Nfac), 1/11, Kika Mansion, 7 Kika Street, Mumbai Vs. Gulalwadi, Mumbai – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Aqupp7055J (Appellant) (Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Salot
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM Vinayak

DCIT 42 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Devleela Developers, Mumbai

In the result present appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2097/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawaldcit – 42(1)(1) Vs. Devleela Developers Room No. 732, Kautilya 604-605, Aravalli Bhavan Bkc (E), Mumbai – Business Centre, 400051. Ramdas Sutrale Marg, Borivali (W) Pan/Gir No. Aacfd5181B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Yashita Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT(A), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6200/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 6200/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Yashita Finance Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 8-A, Commissioner Lane, Civil Lines, Ward-27(4), New Delhi-110054 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacy3088P Assessee By: Ms. Tinya, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Tinya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 2Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram vs. Rajakumari Shopping Amall LLP, Attingal

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 597/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle .......... Appellant Aayakar Bhavan, Kawdiar, Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Rajkumari Shopping Mall Llp ......... Respondent Amc 11/556, City Plaza, Nh Road Attingal 695101 [Pan: Aaqfr1222B] Assessee By: Shri V.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri V.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

order was emanated from the order 2 Rajkumari Shopping Mall LLP of the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 26/09/2023. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was assessed ... therefore unable to accept the contention of the revenue that such defect is a mere technicality, particularly when penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act carry severe and penal consequences.In the absence of a valid notice specifying the exact charge, the penalty proceedings themselves are rendered void

Bina Kanwar, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward Tonk, Tonk

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

ITA 1243/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115Section 147Section 234Section 69A

under section 69A, the charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, and the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8.3 The re-opening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act 1961, is found to be legally valid

Rupesh Tambi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

ITA 1470/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 271Section 271A

Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra) held as under: 9. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that ... terms "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars". The court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), mens rea was necessary, as according to the Court, the word "inaccurate" signified a deliberate act or omission on behalf of the assessee

Sarojben Natvarbhai Patel, Chhotaudepur vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 375/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Bakshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Other Sources.” Accordingly, the sum of Rs. 55,00,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271F, and 271(1)(b) were initiated for concealment of income, failure to file return, and non-compliance with statutory notices respectively

Ravi Yantriki Udyog Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward (5)(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1588/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 194C

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

Sanjay Jain, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Noida

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the impugned penalty order dated 27

ITA 5867/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sanjay Jain, Vs Ito, D-386, Sector-10, Ward-3(3), Noida, Noida. Uttar Pradesh – 201 301. Pan: Adgpj0804Q (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Shantanu Jain & Shri Jahanvi Khanna, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.09.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit (Appeals), Ghaziabad/10264/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 27.06.2019 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-3(3), Noida (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That By Way Of The Impugned Order, The Penalty Imposed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Was Challenged, But, The Subsequent Developments Are That By Order Dated 30.12.2024 The Assessee’S Quantum Appeal Was Allowed By The Cit(A) & The Matter Was Sent Back To The Ao For Making A Fresh Assessment Of Income Of The Appellant And, Thereupon By Order Dated 29.09.2025, In The Set Aside Proceedings, No Addition Has Been Made.

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN

K P Enterprises, Etawah vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Firozabad

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

ITA 341/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated10.06.2025 for Assessment Year2014-15 affirming the penalty order dated 15.02.2022 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the penalty order under ... section 271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the year

Asha Panagariya, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 998/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 250

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf

Kishan Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 1155/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 69ASection 69C

expenditure and the Grounds of Appeal are Not Allowed. 9. Ground No 3: This ground is against the initiation of penalties under various sections 271 (1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The initiation and the levy of penalty are the subject matter

Khateeb Omair Ahmed, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2211/CHNY/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2211/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri V. Arunachalesh, Advocate for Ms. G. Vardini Karthick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 80R

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा