← 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)

Arham Anmol Projects Private Limited, Village Valshind, Bhiwandi vs. Circle 1 Kalyan, Kalyan, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is disposed of accordingly in

ITA 4929/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 748

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ

M.Lakhamsi& Co., Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4304/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Vajani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) held that “the explanations appended to section 271(1)(c) entirely indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate Page 5 ITA No. 4304/Mum/2025 ... case of Dilip N. Shroff V. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (supraC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "66. Section 271(1) (c) remains a penal statute. Rule of strict construction shall apply thereto. Ingredients of imposing penalty remains the same. The purpose of the Legislature that

Marrium M Shafi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 245/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmarrium M.Shafi V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 803, Panchvatipanch Marg बनाम 24(2)(1), Income Tax Bldg., 6Th Off Yari Road, Versova – Floor, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400061, Maharashtra 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Azaps2406F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri AshwinChhag,ARFor Respondent: Shri AnnavaranKosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 144Section 147Section 249Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mukon Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1152/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivashtav,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC) held that “the explanations appended to section 271(1)(c) entirely indicate the element of strict liability on the assessee for concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars of income while filing return. The penalty under that ... case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "66. Section 271(1) (c) remains a penal statute. Rule of strict construction shall apply thereto. Ingredients of imposing penalty remains the same. The purpose of the Legislature that

Franklin Templeton Internaitoanl Services (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 7216/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

relief in computing interest under Section 234B and Section 234D of the Act in accordance with the law. Ground IV - Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in law in initiating ... penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be dropped in the matter. Ground V-Consequential reliefs The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to grant all consequential reliefs arising out of reliefs from this appeal.” 2. The Ld.AR submitted

Franklin Templeton International Services (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 3(1)(OSD), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 stands partly allowed

ITA 6986/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

relief in computing interest under Section 234B and Section 234D of the Act in accordance with the law. Ground IV - Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in law in initiating ... penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be dropped in the matter. Ground V-Consequential reliefs The Appellant prays that the AO be directed to grant all consequential reliefs arising out of reliefs from this appeal.” 2. The Ld.AR submitted

Sutanuti Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 4041/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh.Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Sutanuti Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Delhi Flat No.801, 8Th Floor, Block- B, The Sb Yudh, Cghs Pno-6B, Sec-2, Phase-I, Dwarka, Near Moth, Er Dairy, New Delhi Pan No.Aancs1363E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.BRAJESH KUMAR

Anubha Bansal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-10(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2640/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

perused. 3. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground pleaded in the instant appeal challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.76,80,559/-, it transpires at the outset that the tribunal’s 2 Anubha Bansal order in her quantum appeal

Byas Prasad Verma, Kushinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

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

ITA 2/VNS/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Byas Prasad Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. Dhaurahara Ward 2(4) Nadwa Bishunpur Kushinagar Fazilnagar, Kushinagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Amupv6031E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.16,45,000/- In His Saving Bank Account. In Order To Examine These Facts, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ao Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 69A

head ‘other source of income’, being bank interest received by the assessee from PNB. 2.1 The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b)of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal

Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Azamgarh vs. ITO Ward3(1), Income Tax Office Azamgarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

assessee had concealed the particulars of income of Rs.14,98,600/- and, accordingly, he imposed a penalty of Rs.3,66,248/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide order dated 16.03.2022. 3.0 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ... quantum proceedings and confirmed the order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. 4.0 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following grounds

Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Azamgarh vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/VNS/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush Kumar Kamal and Abhishek Kumar Gupta, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

assessee had concealed the particulars of income of Rs.14,98,600/- and, accordingly, he imposed a penalty of Rs.3,66,248/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide order dated 16.03.2022. 3.0 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ... quantum proceedings and confirmed the order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. 4.0 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following grounds

Bakeri Projects Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee on this ground are allowed

ITA 785/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

brand, loyal customer base, trust & quality, competent workforce, and decades of experience). 6. Initiation of Penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is unjust, unreasonable and therefore, bad in law. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change

Lear Automotive India P. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune

ITA 554/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

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

Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1), Pune vs. Anil Jairam Goel, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2241/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Anil Jairam Goel, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2239/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Grishmaben Ojasbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO 3(2) (1), Surat

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

ITA 914/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Ashvinbhai Laxmanbhai Karkar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(1)(5), Surat

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

ITA 83/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

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

about the proceedings and also not forward or share with me any of the notices issued during the assessment and penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No physical notices were served to me either, and hence I could not comply with the requirements ... Thereafter, I filed both appeals through my new consultant on 30.10.2023 against the Assessment Order under Section 144 and the Penalty Order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, my appeals before the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi were delayed. Ashvinbhai Laxmanbhai Karkar, Mumbai

Ashvinbhai Laxmanbhai Karkar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(1)(5), Surat

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

ITA 82/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

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

about the proceedings and also not forward or share with me any of the notices issued during the assessment and penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No physical notices were served to me either, and hence I could not comply with the requirements ... Thereafter, I filed both appeals through my new consultant on 30.10.2023 against the Assessment Order under Section 144 and the Penalty Order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, my appeals before the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi were delayed. Ashvinbhai Laxmanbhai Karkar, Mumbai

Thakorbhai Chhaganbhai Mori, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 405/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Birendra Singh Nirbhay, Sirsi Road Jaipur Rajasthan vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Jaipur, Ncrb Income Tax Department Statue Circle Jaipur Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 69C

reasonable 6% rate on the sale) is to be treated as undisclosed expenditure under Section 69C. iv. Separate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for concealment. 7. Legal and Judicial Reasoning: i. The assessment order emphasizes that in assessing whether