← 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)

Vikrant Goyat, Hansi vs. ITO, Ward-5, Hisar

In the result, both the Assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 2105/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA NOS. 2105

Sudesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 284/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2013-14 Sudesh Gupta, Vs. Acit, Circle 5(1), B-15, Kalindi Colony, Opp. Room No. G-15-B, C.R. Maharani Bagh, Building, New Delhi – 2 New Delhi (Pan: Aahpg5645G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)

income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. It can be seen from 4 the notice issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, Assessing Officer did not strike off irrelevant limb in the notice specifying the charge for which notice was issued. 9. Ratio ... Court held as under :- “Head Note only:- S.271(1)© : Penalty – Concealment – Non-striking off of the irrelevant part whiel issuing notice under section 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, - Order is bad in law – Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice

Ashok Kumar Grover, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-61(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2969/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan,Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

AM/PM on 22.01.2018 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through nuthorized representative ... Officer u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

Maxis Mobile Services Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), International Taxation

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2746/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 148Section 149Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 56

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, being against the provisions of the Act. 5. General 5.1 Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice

Jai Singh Goel, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 202/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

hearing in light of the aassessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement contentions that both the learned lower authorities have levied the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalties of Rs. 1,42,975/-, Rs. 55,913/-; and Rs. 64,161/-; assessment year wise respectively, on the ground that the assessee

Jai Singh Goel, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 201/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

hearing in light of the aassessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement contentions that both the learned lower authorities have levied the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalties of Rs. 1,42,975/-, Rs. 55,913/-; and Rs. 64,161/-; assessment year wise respectively, on the ground that the assessee

Jai Singh Goel, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 200/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

hearing in light of the aassessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement contentions that both the learned lower authorities have levied the impugned section 271(1)(c) penalties of Rs. 1,42,975/-, Rs. 55,913/-; and Rs. 64,161/-; assessment year wise respectively, on the ground that the assessee

ACIT-2(1)(1), Kanpur vs. Up State Yarn Company Limited, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 469/LKW/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit-2(1)(1) Up State Yarn Company V. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Limited Uttar Pradesh-208001. 1 Smith Square, 14/72, Civil Lines, Uttar Pradesh- 208001. Pan:Aaacu1674K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

point. The decision concludes as: 7. As against this, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent pointed out that the language of section 271(1)(c) had to be strictly construed, this being a taxing statute and more particularly the one Page 4 of 7 providing for penalty ... pointed out that there was no concealment or any inaccurate particulars regarding the income were submitted in the Return. Section 271(1)(c) is as under: 271. (4 ) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the Course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied

Alkeshbhai Bhogibhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1511/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 271(1)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President Assessment Year 2012-13 Alkeshbhai Bhogibhai

M/S. D.K. Industries, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1417/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

imposed the penalty as it is evident from the penalty notice that there was no satisfaction recorded as to under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty was being sought to be imposed. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that ... accounts; (i) concealed the particulars of income and (ii) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Now, going over the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is thus: “Explaining the legal provisions it is submitted that sec. 271 (l)(c) of the Act is a penal provision

India Tube Mills and Metal Industries Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2262/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (SRDR)
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)

Rs.74,23,092/-. Finally, the tax on the concealed income was calculated amount to Rs.22,93,736/- by the ld.AO. The penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated and a penalty of Rs.22,93,736/- was levied on the assessee being 100% of the tax sought

Gujarat Insecticides Limited, Bharuch vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1) (Previously the ACIT, Circle-2, Bharuch), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 675/AHD/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.675/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-08 Gujarat Insecticides Ltd. The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Plot No.805-806 Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Gidc Estate, Ankleshwar Vadodara-390 007 Bharuch,Ankleshwar – 393 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 8436 D अपीलाथ&/ (Appellant) '( यथ&/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], dated 26.03.2024, upholding the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as “AO”] under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] amounting to Rs.58,97,870/- in respect of the disallowance ... that the issue was debatable and involved substantial legal interpretation. 3.2. In parallel with the quantum proceedings, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, alleging that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming the deduction of Rs.1

Shivam Readymix Private Limited, Neemuch vs. The PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 69C

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

Kolahai Infotech Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2815/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2016-17 Kolahai Infotech Private Vs. Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax 1St 129, Floor, Transport Department, Delhi Centre, Punjabi Bagh, Civic Centre, Mkinto New Delhi – 110 034 Road, New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aadck3127C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

1. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned penalty order dated 16.01.2024 passed under section 271 (1)(h) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by Assessment Unit (‘AU’) and the impugned order dated 06.05.2024 passed under section ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AU and NFAC have erred in levying a penalty of Rs.30.000/- under section 271(1)(b) whereas the Assessment for the same year has been completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Hence, the impugned penalty is liable

Sanjeev Choudhary, Sirsa vs. DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Choudhary Vs. Dcit C/O Sudhindra Jain & Co. Central Circle 113/7A, Indra Jit Jian Marg, Ghaziabad Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur 208002 Pan No.Aeypc5911Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Appeals)-4, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in not considering that that A.O. did not specifically invoke Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, neither in the Assessment Order nor in any of the notice(s) issued therefore, the imposition ... Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in not considering and appreciating the conditions necessary for invocation of Explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were neither present in the facts of the present case nor the onus cast upon

Shreenath Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2) Old Ward-2(2)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1651/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2014-15 Shreenath Corporation Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(1)(2) C/O. Ms Chhajed & Co., Ca Ahmedabad. “Kamal Shanti”, Nr. Sardar Patel Statute Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Acffs 4232 D Assessee By : Shri M.S. Chhajed, Ar : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 6.8.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) ,Dismissing Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act ,As Non-Maintainable.

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, AR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) ,dismissing assessee’s appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act ,as non-maintainable. 3. The ld.CIT(A), we find has dismissed the assessee’s appeal as non-maintainable

M/S Blue Jet Healthcare Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1336/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

expenditure the total amount representing total income is enhanced to the extent of disallowance. Conditions which are to be fulfilled before section 271(1)(c) is attracted do not exist.” 6. In this case as is evident from the observation of the para 5.1 of the Ld. AO's order ... revenue that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income or has submitted inaccurate particulars of income so as to attract Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Admittedly, the addition has been made on estimate basis, therefore, the ratio of judgment of the Karnataka High Court referred (supra

M/S. Presario Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4011/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation of Rs.50,25,575/- holding that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealed its income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c). The ld. CIT(A) too has confirmed the said penalty. 4. We have heard both the parties and also perused the relevant material

Benetton India P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 7315/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Benetton India Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, B-25, Infocity, Sector-34, Circle-4(2), Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana) New Delhi. Pan-Aaacd1013F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Suchita Kanodia, Ar, Ms. Nishitta Rai, Ar & Shri Ajit Jain, Ar Respondent By Shri Dharamvir Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.11.2024 Order

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)

transaction. 3. On the facts, circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 271(1) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein

Dilip Kapur, Pondicherry vs. ACIT, NFAC, Circle 1, Pondicherry

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 984/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 984/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dilip Kapur The Assistant Commissioner Of 7, Saint Martin Street, Income Tax, Pondicherry (Ut), Circle -1, Pondicherry – 605 001. Pondicherry – 605 003. [Pan: Adspd-4530-H ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

upheld penalty where returned loss is reduced under Explanation 4(b) to S.271(1)(c) which reads as follows: :-7-: ITA. No: 984/Chny/2024 "Section 271(1)(c) Explanation 4(b) where in any case the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have