“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)

ACIT, Cir 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Western India Garments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4211/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Pico Capital Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of (Successor In Interest Of M/S Income Tax-8(3)(2), Western India Garments Private Mumbai Limited ) 22(1) Bombay Cotton Miis Vs. Compound, Dattaram Lad Path Kalachowky, Mumbai - 400033 (Pan: Aaacw2493G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Western India Garments Tax - 8(2)(1), Private Limited Mumbai 22(1) Bombay Cotton Miis Compound, Vs. Dattaram Lad Path Kalachowky, Mumbai - 400033 (Pan: Aaacw2493G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Revenue : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Pico Capital Pvt Ltd. & Western India Garments Pvt Ltd. Ay 2014-15 Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056675304(1), Dated 29.09.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Dcit, Circle - 8(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 13.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2014- 15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 13,52,543/- Made U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Rules Over & Above The Disallowance Of Rs. 11,02,185/- Made By The Appellant. 2. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 13.12.2016 Is Bad In Law As The Same Has Been Passed In The Name Of The Non-Existent Person. 3. The Ld. Ao, Has Erred In The Levying Interest Under Section 234B Of The Act. 4. The Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Pico Capital Private Limited (Successor in Interest of M/S Western India Garments Private Limited ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4007/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Seema Goel, Delhi vs. CIT A, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

Income Tax Act without considering that the addition was disputed and not part of the original return. 5. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c) is Premature o The initiation of penalty proceedings for alleged concealment of income is premature and without proper justification. PRAYER: The appellant respectfully ... short-term capital gain be deleted.  The interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds

Seema Goel, Delhi vs. CIT A, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Ramesh Raghavbhai Bhadani, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 249/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.249/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Ramesh Raghavbhai Bhadani बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Fashion. Vs. Surat, Room No. 505, 5Th Floor, 14, Nirmaan Industrial Estate, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat- 395 Surat-395 001 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adkpb 0556 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT

Sharadamba Enterprises, Hubli vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hubballi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for defective presentation and also for non-prosecution

ITA 1407/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: None

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Krishna Enterprises, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 34(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5654/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Krishna Enterprises, Assistant Commissioner Of 202, Bhagirathi Apartment, Income Tax, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi- Vs Circle 34(1), 110085. Delhi. Pan- Aahfk4892P Assessee Revenue

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

Taxmann 248(SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the notice issued by the AO under section 274 read with section 271(1) (c) of the Act was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c ... specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income confirming the Karnataka High Court decision of Commissioner Of Income Tax -Vs- Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (Supra). ITA No.- 5654/Del/2024 Krishna

Dialnet Communications Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 7(3), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7885/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

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

legal grounds raised by the assessee. The Hon’ble Court, inter-alia, held that the impugned notice - 10 - ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 under section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to whether assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income ... transactions were through banking channels. Hence, the argument of Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue that both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted has to necessarily fall. Hence, we hold that there is inherent defect in the notice dated 30.3.2016 issued under

Pioneer India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2969/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 92C

learned AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit

Shri Subhas Hansaraj Nandu, Bhachau-Kutch vs. The ACIT, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham-Kutch

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

ITA 10/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu, V Acit, Gandhidham Opp. Shambhu Maharaj Circle, S Bunglow, Kutch . Bhachau, Gujarat – 370140 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afrpn0720J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k

Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"SMC” JAIPUR श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई

Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar vs. ITO Ward-4 Sikar, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Tinich Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited, Bastii vs. ITO, Basti

ITA 295/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma and Shri Amit Kumar, D.Rs

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessee at Rs.34,51,400/- as against Nil income returned by the assessee. 2.2 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.3 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merits

Tinich Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited, Basti vs. ITO, Basti

ITA 294/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma and Shri Amit Kumar, D.Rs

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

fresh or satisfactory evidence. Consequently, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income at Rs. 21,25,88,626/-, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) noted that the Assessing Officer