← 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)

Maynagori C S Shop, Maynaguri vs. CIT Appeals, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1152/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 928/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Maynagori C.S. Shop,…………………………....Appellant Thana Road, Maynaguri, Jalpaiguri-735224, West Bengal [Pan: Aaofm3110D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….....Respondent Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri, C.R. Building, Race Course Road, Naya Basti, Jalpaiguri-735101, West Bengal -A N D- I.T.A. No. 1152/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Maynagori C.S. Shop,…………………………....Appellant Thana Road, Maynaguri, Jalpaiguri-735224, West Bengal [Pan: Aaofm3110D] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),…..Respondent Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Appearances By: Shri R.K. Saha, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A. Kundu, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue 1 & Maynagori C.S. Shop

Section 271(1)(c)

take up the appeal in ITA No. 1152/KOL/2024. 7. 8. In this appeal, the assessee has contested the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which has been imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer in relation to the quantum addition, as contested ... proceedings/order, if the ld. Assessing Officer will be of the view that it is a fit case for initiation/levy of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, he will be at liberty to do so. 10. With the above observations, this appeal of the assessee

Maynagori C S Shop, Maynaguri vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 928/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 928/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Maynagori C.S. Shop,…………………………....Appellant Thana Road, Maynaguri, Jalpaiguri-735224, West Bengal [Pan: Aaofm3110D] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….....Respondent Circle-1(1), Jalpaiguri, C.R. Building, Race Course Road, Naya Basti, Jalpaiguri-735101, West Bengal -A N D- I.T.A. No. 1152/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Maynagori C.S. Shop,…………………………....Appellant Thana Road, Maynaguri, Jalpaiguri-735224, West Bengal [Pan: Aaofm3110D] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),…..Respondent Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Appearances By: Shri R.K. Saha, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A. Kundu, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue 1 & Maynagori C.S. Shop

Section 271(1)(c)

take up the appeal in ITA No. 1152/KOL/2024. 7. 8. In this appeal, the assessee has contested the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which has been imposed by the ld. Assessing Officer in relation to the quantum addition, as contested ... proceedings/order, if the ld. Assessing Officer will be of the view that it is a fit case for initiation/levy of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, he will be at liberty to do so. 10. With the above observations, this appeal of the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Race Course Road vs. Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, Arts College Road, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 2370/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2366, 2367 & 2370 /Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore Cheran Enterprises Private Limited, No.78, Cheran Towers, Government Arts College Road, Coimbatore Tamil Nadu-641018 [Pan: Aaccc5150] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Shri Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : The Appeals Vide Ita No.2366/Chny/2024 For Ay 2015-16 Vide Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066850730(1) Dated 19.07.2024 & Ita No.2367/Chny/2024 For Ay 2015-16 Vide No.Itba / Nfac / S / 250 /2024-25/1066924539(1) Dated 23.07.2024 & Vide Ita No.2370/Chny/2024 For Ay 2017-18 & Vide Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1066850925 Dated 19.07.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi. Through The Aforesaid Appeal :- 2 -:

Section 147Section 250Section 5

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Iljin Automotive Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1834/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1834/Chny/2017 (िनधा)रणवष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Iljin Automotive Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Plot No.B1 & B2, Sipcot Industrial Park Corporate Circle-2(2), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Chennai. Vs. Kanchipuram-602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-2641-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bagmar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32Section 43ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

good faith and with due diligence, and therefore it was not a case of deemed concealment in terms of Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 1.3 The Ld. AR placed on record ground-wise chart and advanced arguments by referring to the findings of lower authorities

Osho Forge Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and penalty is deleted

ITA 523/CHANDI/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 523/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Osho Forge Ltd., Vs. Dcit, बनाम D-42, Phase V, Circle 1, Focal Point, Ludhiana, Ludhiana Punjab 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaaco3362I अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sarabjit Garg, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Sarabjit Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Parkash Kalia, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

failed to serve the order passed u/s 250 on the Assessee, and (d) CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a search u/s 132 of the Income ... lacs and made the addition. 9. With the assistance of the ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has direct bearing on the controversy. Therefore, it is pertinent to take note of the section. 523 -Chd-2024- Osho