← 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)

Radha Chandrababu Panikar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

ITA 959/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Radha Chandrababu Income Tax Officer Panikar Ward-3(2)(9), Vs. 28, Ramnagar, Nr. Ambica Ahmedabad Tube Colony, Station Road, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382445 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Apupp1233M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr 19/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Pertain To The Same Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12; While One Is Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(In Short “Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi Dated 07.03.2025 In Quantum Proceedings In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), The Other Appeal Lies Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Quantum Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the other appeal lies against order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. ITA Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 [Radha Chandrababu

Radha Chandrababu Panikar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(9), Ahmedabad

ITA 958/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Radha Chandrababu Income Tax Officer Panikar Ward-3(2)(9), Vs. 28, Ramnagar, Nr. Ambica Ahmedabad Tube Colony, Station Road, Vatva, Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382445 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Apupp1233M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. Dr 19/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 O R D E R Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Pertain To The Same Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12; While One Is Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(In Short “Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As “Nfac”), Delhi Dated 07.03.2025 In Quantum Proceedings In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), The Other Appeal Lies Against Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Addition Made To The Income Of The Assessee In The Quantum Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the other appeal lies against order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. ITA Nos. 958 & 959/Ahd/2025 [Radha Chandrababu

DCIT, CC-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Goldmine Commodities Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1260/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1260/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Goldmine House, V/S. Central Circle-1(4), 4, Niranjan-Nirakar Society, Ahmedabad. Near Shreyas Railway Crossing, Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380007. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccg1295L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Kishor Goyal, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.04.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Acit, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Dcit Vs. Goldmine Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee did not file any reply, therefore, the AO proceeded to add Rs. 6,58,62,000/- and also initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274. The assessed income was computed at Rs. 9,85,22,820/-. 9. The assessee preferred an appeal before