← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)5,698 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)

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)

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT (I) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 790/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

erred in committing a totaling error of Rs. 822,995 while calculating the total taxes payable by the Appellant. 10. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271A of the Act. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271A

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 940/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

erred in committing a totaling error of Rs. 822,995 while calculating the total taxes payable by the Appellant. 10. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271A of the Act. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271A

Abb Switzerland Ltd, Bangalore vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, all four appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2180/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

erred in committing a totaling error of Rs. 822,995 while calculating the total taxes payable by the Appellant. 10. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) and 271A of the Act. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271A

Kavita Ralhan, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (2), Gwalior

ITA 443/AGR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Ward-3(2), CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi’s Din & order A.Y. 2011-12 Gwalior. No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068452052(1) dated 09.09.2024, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 3 445/Agr/2024 Kavita Ralhan ITO Ward-3(2), CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi’s Din & order A.Y. 2011-12 Gwalior. No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068450843(1 ... dated 09.09.2024, ITA Nos. 443 to 446/Agr/2024 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(b). 4 446/Agr/2024 Kavita Ralhan ITO Ward-3(2), CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi’s Din & order A.Y. 2011-12 Gwalior. No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1068452382(1) dated 09.09.2024, involving proceedings under section 271F. 2. Heard both the parties. Case

Utkarsh Vasantkumar Mehta, Silvassa vs. DCIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1192/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

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

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)/ NFAC dated 25th September 2024, in confirming penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (Act). Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however the substantial ground of appeal ... upholding the action of assessing officer in levying penalty of 23,900/ - ₹ under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that while passing the assessment order the AO made addition on account of undisclosed duty drawback of 70,299/-. The addition was made

Nirmaladevi Shreegopal Kanodia, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1781/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(40)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A

Nirmaladevi Shreegopal Kanodia, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1780/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(40)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A

Nirmaladevi Shreegopal Kanodia, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Vejalpur, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1779/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(40)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR.BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A

Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1851/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1851/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 306, Mangaljoyt Ward-3(3)(1) V/S. Jodhpur Road, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Jodhpur 4 Rasta S.O., Ahmedabad – 380 015 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aggpp 5322 A (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 23.08.2024, Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs. 30,000/- Imposed Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For Non- Compliance With Statutory Notices Issued Under Section 142(1) During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 272(1)(b)Section 273B

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 23.08.2024, sustaining the penalty of Rs. 30,000/- imposed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for non- compliance with statutory notices issued under Section 142(1 ... completed ex-parte under Section 144 on 26.05.2023, estimating the total income at Rs.2,23,37,400/-. 3. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act were initiated for repeated non-compliance, and a penalty of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.10,000 per default) was imposed by the Assessing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Jasmine Computech Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for stati...

ITA 5917/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Jasmine Computech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Circle 4(3)(1), Sh-1, Building 2A Wing, Pooja Nagar, Mumbai-401107. Vs. Cross Cabin Road, Bhayandar East, Thane, Mira Road S.O., Chimane, Thane-401107. Pan No. Aaccj 3211 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit M/S Jasmine Computech Pvt. Ltd., 649, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. A 13 4Th Floor, Silver Oak, Bhatt Lane Vs. Road, Poisar Borivali West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaccj 3211 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: 12/02/2025
Section 32Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

M/S Jasmine Computech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are allowed for stati...

ITA 5766/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Jasmine Computech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Circle 4(3)(1), Sh-1, Building 2A Wing, Pooja Nagar, Mumbai-401107. Vs. Cross Cabin Road, Bhayandar East, Thane, Mira Road S.O., Chimane, Thane-401107. Pan No. Aaccj 3211 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit M/S Jasmine Computech Pvt. Ltd., 649, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. A 13 4Th Floor, Silver Oak, Bhatt Lane Vs. Road, Poisar Borivali West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400092. Pan No. Aaccj 3211 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: 12/02/2025
Section 32Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Akm Resorts, Mohali vs. ACIT Circle 5(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 The brief facts of the case as per order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 25.06.2019 hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Penalty Order” is that the assessment was completed under Section ... penal action on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and default has been committed by the assessee within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and has quantified concealment of ITA 42/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 6 income to the tune to the tune of Rs.5

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3514/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R
Section 115JSection 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

levy of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act is consequential in nature. 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act [Page 9 & 12 of the Assessment Order issued under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act] The learned AO erred ... facts in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as no case is made out by the AO that the Appellant has concealed any particulars of income/ furnished inaccurate particulars to the learned AO either in the tax return or during

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell -TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 34/DEL/2024[2022-23 (Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 271(1)(c)

parties at length. Case files perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have invoked section 271(1)(c) penalty provision in holding the assessee to have concealed and furnished inaccurate particulars of income; going by the corresponding incriminating material found/seized

Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Cell -TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 33/DEL/2024[2021-22 (Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 271(1)(c)

parties at length. Case files perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have invoked section 271(1)(c) penalty provision in holding the assessee to have concealed and furnished inaccurate particulars of income; going by the corresponding incriminating material found/seized

Taruna Vatssa, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Agra

ITA 312/AGR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Sh. S. C. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Shalendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Page 1 ITA No.312/Agr/024 Taruna Vatssa IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

M/S Rameshth Construction, Jhansi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3)(1), Jhansi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/AGR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A), Who Dismissed The Appeal Against Which The Assessee Preferred The Appeal Before The Tribunal & Tribunal Vide Order Dated

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Centre (NFAC) Delhi pertaining to penalty order for Assessment year 2010-11 and arises out of the penalty order dated 24.11.2017 passed under Sections 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act for short”). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee ... learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal and upholding the penalty imposed under section 271(1}(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 1,26,320, without appreciating the order passed by the Honourable ITAT in the quantum appeal

Madan Lal Jain, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(2), Kanpur

In the result, these appeals in ITA

ITA 258/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271bSection 274Section 68

circumstances of the case, the ld.ao has erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty of Rs 12,90,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the act 7. Because of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.ao has erred in law and on facts

Madan Lal Jain, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(2), Kanpur

In the result, these appeals in ITA

ITA 257/LKW/2023[F.Y. 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271bSection 274Section 68

circumstances of the case, the ld.ao has erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty of Rs 12,90,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the act 7. Because of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.ao has erred in law and on facts

Shri Madan Lal Jain, Kanpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1 (Now ITO-1(2)), Kanpur

In the result, these appeals in ITA

ITA 679/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Madan Lal Jain Dcit, Central Circle-1 V. 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur- [Now Ito-1(2)] 208001. Kanpur. Pan:Abwpj2684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271bSection 274Section 68

circumstances of the case, the ld.ao has erred in law and on facts in imposing penalty of Rs 12,90,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the act 7. Because of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.ao has erred in law and on facts