← 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)

Ramasamy Jagadishkumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2737/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2007-8 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2735/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2736/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2737/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2738/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2739/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2013-14 Ramasamy Jagadishkumar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Old No.5, New No.41, Vs. Tax, Post Office Road, Central Circle-1, Krishnasamy Nagar, Coimbatore Coimbatore-641045 [Pan: Acapj0483C] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.V.Aswathy, Jcit : 17.12.2024 सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Respondent: Ms.V.Aswathy, JCIT
Section 1Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Ramasamy Jagadishkumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2736/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2007-8 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2735/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2736/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2737/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2738/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2739/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2013-14 Ramasamy Jagadishkumar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Old No.5, New No.41, Vs. Tax, Post Office Road, Central Circle-1, Krishnasamy Nagar, Coimbatore Coimbatore-641045 [Pan: Acapj0483C] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.V.Aswathy, Jcit : 17.12.2024 सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Respondent: Ms.V.Aswathy, JCIT
Section 1Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Ramasamy Jagadishkumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2735/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2007-8 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2735/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2736/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2737/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2738/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2739/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2013-14 Ramasamy Jagadishkumar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Old No.5, New No.41, Vs. Tax, Post Office Road, Central Circle-1, Krishnasamy Nagar, Coimbatore Coimbatore-641045 [Pan: Acapj0483C] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.V.Aswathy, Jcit : 17.12.2024 सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Respondent: Ms.V.Aswathy, JCIT
Section 1Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Ramasamy Jagadishkumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2734/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2734/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2007-8 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2735/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2736/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2737/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2738/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2739/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year-2013-14 Ramasamy Jagadishkumar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Old No.5, New No.41, Vs. Tax, Post Office Road, Central Circle-1, Krishnasamy Nagar, Coimbatore Coimbatore-641045 [Pan: Acapj0483C] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.V.Aswathy, Jcit : 17.12.2024 सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

For Respondent: Ms.V.Aswathy, JCIT
Section 1Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री जॉजज जॉजज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jsr Infra Developers Private Limited, Vellore

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

ITA 2253/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2253/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Jsr Infra Developers Private Income Tax, Limited, No. 4, 10A, East Central Circle 2(4), Cross Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai. Vellore 632 006, Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aadcj4440P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 7 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Justified In Cancelling The Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration is to whether the ld. CIT(A) justified in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. No.2253/Chny/24 3. Brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee ... assessee is not entitled to claim the same in the proceedings consequent upon to search. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1) Explanation 5A 3 I.T.A. No.2253/Chny/24 of the Act and imposed penalty by holding that but for search and seizure action conducted by the Income

Roopanand Ramachandran, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 2180/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2180/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Roopanand Ramachandran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 307, Lloyds Road, Non Corporate Ward 12(2), Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. Greams Road Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaipr3151P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Dhanasekaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugresan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Exparte Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri V. Dhanasekaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Murugresan, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12 challenging exparte order of the ld. CIT(A) against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. At the outset, the ld. AR Shri V. Dhanasekaran, Advocate submits that ... assessee to keep the penalty appeal in abeyance until adjudication of quantum appeal. The ld. AR prayed that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act may be remanded to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider both quantum addition as well as penalty under