← 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)

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai vs. Hemalatha Rajan, Chennai

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 493/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

assessment year 2009- 10 in the case of Smt. Hemalatha Rajan towards quantum addition as well as penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] respectively. 2. Since issues raised in both the quantum appeals are similar and based on same identical facts ... raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 15. I.T.A. No. 493/Chny/2020 for AY 2009-10 in the case of Smt. Hemalatha Rajan passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 17. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai vs. Hemalatha Rajan, Chennai

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 492/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

assessment year 2009- 10 in the case of Smt. Hemalatha Rajan towards quantum addition as well as penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] respectively. 2. Since issues raised in both the quantum appeals are similar and based on same identical facts ... raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 15. I.T.A. No. 493/Chny/2020 for AY 2009-10 in the case of Smt. Hemalatha Rajan passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 17. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised

ACIT Non Corporate Circle-7, Chennai vs. Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Chennai

In the result, all three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 11/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.11/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Karuppusamy Pandiarajan, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7, No. 61, Tas Enclave, C3, Golden Kings Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 121, Court, 10Th Main Road, Santhi Colony, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aadpp4895M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.492 & 493/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Hemalatha Rajan, 3Rd Floor, Golden Kings Court, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 034. No. 61, Tas Enclave, Santhi Colony, 10Th Main Road, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 40. [Pan: Aatph2012G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 11/Chny/2020 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

assessment year 2009- 10 in the case of Smt. Hemalatha Rajan towards quantum addition as well as penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] respectively. 2. Since issues raised in both the quantum appeals are similar and based on same identical facts ... raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 15. I.T.A. No. 493/Chny/2020 for AY 2009-10 in the case of Smt. Hemalatha Rajan passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and requires no adjudication. 17. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised

Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, The Income Tax Officer, 37 38 39 40, Aditya Avenue, V Ward-1(3), Nashik. Tidke Colony, S Nashik – 422002. Pan: Adipj1793J Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 20.02.2024 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.05.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961 To Rs 10,13,112 (Being 100% Of Tax Evaded) As Against The Penalty Of Rs. 20,64,224 (Being 200% Of Tax Evaded For Concealment Of Income). The Learned I-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That There Is No Any Concealment Of Income.

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

other taxable income. Since there is no taxable capital gain, there is no concealment of income by assessee. Hence, penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income is unsustainable. 4 Accordingly, AO is directed to delete the penalty. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Daeseung Autoparts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT (OSD), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 752/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.752/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Daeseung Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Osd) Plot No,474, Mannur Village, Corporate Range-1, बनाम/ Vs. Valarpuram Post, Sriperumpudhur Taluk Chennai. Kanchipuram- 602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccd-5629-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Suresh (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 92C

there was no taxable income post setting off the brought forward losses. 22. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that accurate particulars of income were duly furnished and additions to income are only on account

Sri Maharani Finance Corporaton, Thiruchengode vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1264/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1262/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Maharani Finance Corporation Dcit बनाम/ 24A, Velur Road, Central Circle, Vs. Tiruchengode-637 211. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfs-0488-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Penalty In Captioned Assessment Years, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. First, We Take Up Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 For Ay 2016-17 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

initiated separately. 3. The penalty proceedings were initiated on 22-03-2022 and a notice was issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c), a copy of which is on record. The same read as under: - …..Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year ... 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

Sri Maharani Finance Corporation, Thiruchengode vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1262/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1262/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Maharani Finance Corporation Dcit बनाम/ 24A, Velur Road, Central Circle, Vs. Tiruchengode-637 211. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfs-0488-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Penalty In Captioned Assessment Years, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. First, We Take Up Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 For Ay 2016-17 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

initiated separately. 3. The penalty proceedings were initiated on 22-03-2022 and a notice was issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c), a copy of which is on record. The same read as under: - …..Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year ... 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

Sri Maharani Finance Corporation, Thiruchengode vs. DCIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1261/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1261/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1262/Chny/2023 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Sri Maharani Finance Corporation Dcit बनाम/ 24A, Velur Road, Central Circle, Vs. Tiruchengode-637 211. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfs-0488-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Certain Penalty In Captioned Assessment Years, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. First, We Take Up Ita No.1264/Chny/2023 For Ay 2016-17 Which Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Chennai

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

initiated separately. 3. The penalty proceedings were initiated on 22-03-2022 and a notice was issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c), a copy of which is on record. The same read as under: - …..Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year ... 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