“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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune vs. Lb Kunjir, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

DCIT, Pune vs. L B Kunjir, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1088/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

DCIT Circle 7, Bodhi Tower Salisbury Park vs. L B Kunjir, Pune

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 959/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.957 To 959/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Om Shakthy Tower-2, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3), No.Ts 64, Chennai. Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aafpr 6559 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

1)(c) of the Act or not ? On perusal of the SCN dated 26.02.2014 & 23.12.2011, we note that both the faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are given therein i.e. “the assessee have concealed the particulars of his income” or “furnished inaccurate particulars of such income ... Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 958/CHNY/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 957/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tpg Capital India P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3132/Mum/2019is

ITA 3283/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Mr. Porus F Kaka / Mr. Manish KanthFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth J (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 250Section 92C(3)

these interest. 11. The CIT(A)/ AO/ erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant crave leave to add, amend, delete, rectify, substitute and / or modify any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal ... these interest. 11. The CIT(A)/ AO/ erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant crave leave to add, amend, delete, rectify, substitute and / or modify any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal

Shimla, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2357/DEL/2023[AY 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024

Bench: Us Which Is Filed In Paper Book At Page

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 54FSection 68

impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 8. That the provisions of section 271(1) (C) is not justify the case of the applicant. 9. That the impugned Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, Noida is a clear

S K Bhansali & Associates, Pune vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

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

ITA 535/PUN/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 147ASection 148Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

impugned capital gain was taxable in an another manner. 27. It is well settled proposition that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are independent proceedings and that the conclusions reached in the assessment proceedings are not conclusive so far as the penal ... proceedings was not warranted then the findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be considered as conclusive so as to fasten penal liability under Section 271(1)(c) on the assessee. In support of the aforesaid proposition, we may rely upon the ratio of judgement of the Hon‟ble Bombay High

Ampa Palaniappan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

ITA 1371/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1370/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1371/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ampa Palaniappan Acit बनाम/ Non-Corporate Circle-2(1) 48/19, Raman Street, T. Nagar Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aippp-3546-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) -Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Mukundan (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Mukundan (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

initiated separately. 3.2 During the course of penalty proceedings, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) on 27-12- 2018 as under: - Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year 2016-17, it appears ... Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob Vs. lTO (supra), considering various decisions holding the field, held that since the notice under Section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to whether assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income

Ampa Palaniappan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corp Circle 2(1), Chennai

ITA 1370/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Mukundan (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Parry Infrastructure Co P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

concealed its income and so also furnished inaccurate particulars of income for evading taxes as understood in terms of provisions contained in section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the additions made to the tune of Rs.45,91,25,185/- by way of enhancement

Heena Kauser, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Center Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 432/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, SR.AR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)

which the assessee failed to substantiate, leading to its addition to the assessed income. Thereafter, Assessing Officer issued penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealing income. Finally, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act interalia making an addition

Heena Kauser, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Center Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, SR.AR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)

Heena Kauser, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Center Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 430/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, SR.AR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)

Tpg Capital P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3132/Mum/2019is allowedand appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 3283/Mum/2019 is dismissed

ITA 3132/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeetpg Capital India Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 1004, The Capital, Plot No.C-70, Income-Tax, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai Room O.475, 4Th Floor, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pan :Aabcn6660K Mumbai-400 020 Dcit-14(3)(1), Mumbai Vs Tpg Capital India Private Limited 1004, The Capital, Plot No.C-70, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan :Aabcn6660K

For Appellant: Mr. Porus F Kaka / Mr. Manish KanthFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth J (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 250Section 92C(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jaipur Telecom Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 31/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble High Court Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of Hon’Ble Itat & The Matter Is Subjudice?”

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

assessment year 2014-15. The said order of the ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC arises as against the order dated 10.12.2021 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [ here in after referred as ld. AO ]. 2 ACIT vs. Jaipur Telecom Private ... penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income. As per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c), minimum penalty leviable is 100 per cent of the tax sought to be evaded and the maximum penalty leviable is 300 per cent

Mr. Anil Ananda Pokharnikar, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(3), Pune

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

ITA 356/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prashant MunotFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 144Section 147Section 2Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case and the correct legal position in its proper perspective, and without satisfaction of the pre-conditions in section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred both on facts and in law, in passing an ex-parte adverse appeal order

Smt. Bugli Devi, Tehsil Amer, Jhotwara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 278/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) (Th. V.C.)

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

/NFAC"] for the assessment year 2012-13, which in turn arise from the penalty order dated 02.02.2022 passed under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “Act”) by the ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur. 2 Smt. Bugli Devi vs. ITO 2. The assessee

Ritu Multitrade Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 938/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessing Officer had erred in initiating the penalty proceeding by issuing the impugned show cause notice dated 30.11.2017 under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c)- without striking off the irrelevant/in-applicable limb; thereby issuing a defective notice which is bad in the eyes of law as held ... assessee is specific, the same could not be maintained. Thus, on this sole technical defect in the notice issued u/s. 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty so imposed is ought to be deleted. 6. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on another decision