“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)

Mysore Race Club Limited, Mysore vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Mysore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 694/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40A(3)

under section 250 of the Act. ITA Nos.694, 695/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 8 10. The appellant submits that an order of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was passed on 13.03.2025 for the assessment year 2014- 15 and the staff of the appellant informed the committee regarding receipt

Ramasubramanian Sabapathy, Bengaluru vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as infructuous

ITA 1076/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Secure Matrix Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 8(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4737/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 04.09.2025

Section 115JSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 43(5)

medical documents. The rejection of additional evidence has resulted in the violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Initiation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) without properly because there was no concealment

Ranmalbhai Palabhai Chhuchhar, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs. Assessing Officer, Jamnagar, Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 503/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Madhvi Khetiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147

MAPCaN asp Wale aAMaAnlS AaHle | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Ranmalbhai Palabhai Chhuchhar, Jamnagar, Gujarat vs. Assessing Officer, Jamnagar, Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 502/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Madhvi Khetiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147

MAPCaN asp Wale aAMaAnlS AaHle | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Shalom Charitable Ministries of India, Palakkad vs. ITO (Exemption), Thrissur

ITA 548/COCH/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 12A(1)(b)Section 14Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the NFAC had dismissed the appeals against the Penalty Orders, dated 18/02/2022 and 08/06/2017, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2011-2012 & 2007-08, respectively. The Assessee has also filed stay applications seeking stay on recovery ... that the Assessee is a charitable trust. Vide Order, dated 08/06/2017, penalty of INR.18,74,916/- was levied upon the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of Assessment Year 2007-08. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the NFAC which was disposed of vide

Shalom Charitable Ministries of India, Palakkad vs. ITO (Exemption), Thrissur

ITA 545/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR

Section 12A(1)(b)Section 14Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

Sandip Gulab Gogawale, Pune vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 667/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.667/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sandip Gulab Gogawale, Vs. Ito, Ward-5(3), Pune. 143, A/P- Gogalwadi, Taluka- Haveli, District- Pune- 412205. Pan : Allpg3405D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandip Gogawale Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.01.2025 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. When The Appeal Was Called For Hearing, The Assessee Himself Appeared In Person & Submitted That Due To Ignorance & 2 Inadvertent Error The Instant Appeal Against The Penalty Order Was Filed Directly Before This Tribunal Instead Of Filing The First Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A). In This Regard, The Assessee Also Filed An Application & Requested Before The Bench To Pass Appropriate Order. He Submitted That He Will File The Appeal Before The Cit(A) As Per Law. 3. We Have Heard Ld. Counsels From Both The Sides & Perused The Material Available On Record. Considering The Application Filed By The Assessee On 09.09.2025, We Find That Admittedly The Assessee Was Required To File First Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Against The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. However, Due To Ignorance The Assessee Inadvertently Filed The Instant Appeal Before This Tribunal. As Per Section 246 & 246A Of The Income Tax Act, Appeal Against The Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Lies Before Jcit(A)/Cit(A) & Not Before This Tribunal. Therefore, The Instant Appeal Directly Filed Before This Tribunal Is Not Maintainable & Accordingly The Present Appeal Is Dismissed As Infructuous.

For Appellant: Shri Sandip GogawaleFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 246Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Akhilesh Singh Bhadauria, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-58(2), Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2349/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Akhilesh Singh Bhadauria, Vs Ito, A-19, Ground Floor, Ward-58(2), Ghazipur Village, Delhi. Delhi – 110 096 Pan: Altpb9329H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Kumar Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 282Section 69A

section 234B and 234C of the Act. 11) The Ld.AO has erred both on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12) That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another and the Appellant craves leave

Dubbi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Dausa vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.C.)

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80P

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

Rotomag Motors & Controls (P) Ltd., Anand vs. The Dy.CIT, Anand Circle, Anand

Appeal is allowed

ITA 796/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate, &For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 40

arate after, rerarare areal ‘B’ AgTaTaTA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR

Vineet Bajoria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 45(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 231/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR

Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘ D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRI AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR

Vineet Bajoria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 45(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 230/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR

Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘ D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRI AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR

Vineet Bajoria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 45(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 229/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR

Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘ D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRI AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR

Vineet Bajoria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 45(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 228/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR

Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘ D’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE S/SHRI AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PRADIP KUMAR

Amiya Shankar Ghar, Bankura vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Bankura

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1443/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-2015 Amiya Shankar Ghar, Ward Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.08, Dewan Bazar, No.3(1), Bankura, Po: Sonamukhi, Po: Sonamukhi, Kendudihi, Dist: Bankura. Dist: Bankura. Pan/Gir No.Acypg 7746 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sen, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sankar Naskar, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sen, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Naskar, Sr DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘ SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI AND RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014