← 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)

Nawal Basudeo Agarwal, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 4419/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy S

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds

A.C.I.T. - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sahara Q Gold Mart Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6333/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 46ASection 68

Tribunal is also incompetent. In the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh(supra), a similar question arose in an order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, placing reliance on the decision of the Mumbai High Court in Jivatlal

A.C.I.T. - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sahara Q Shop Unique Products Range Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 6332/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 46ASection 68

Tribunal is also incompetent. In the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh(supra), a similar question arose in an order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, placing reliance on the decision of the Mumbai High Court in Jivatlal

Lauls Private Limited, Faridabad vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 862/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 271(1)(c)

1)(c) on addition of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 5,25,000/- as it is well settled law that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied for disallowance of expenditure claimed. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the matter, the additions made

Vardhman Automobiles (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 3994/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271C

crept in. The following words appearing in 3rd and 4th line of paragraph 9 “……there is no merit in levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the same is deleted.”, should be read as “…….there is no merit in levy of penalty u/s 271C

Goldman Sachs International, C/O Ernst and Young LLP Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD) (International Taxation) - 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 565/BANG/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Hiten Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Satish Meriga, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

gi1en that the seconded employees 'make available' their expertise and skills to GSSPL. 5. The learned AO erred in invoking penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income for the captioned AY. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee

Goldman Sachs International, C/O Ernst Young LLP, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD) (International Taxation) - 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 564/BANG/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Hiten Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Satish Meriga, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

gi1en that the seconded employees 'make available' their expertise and skills to GSSPL. 5. The learned AO erred in invoking penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income for the captioned AY. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee

Shine Star, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4742/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal: A.Y : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 271(1)(c)

aware of the order so passed by the learned CIT(A) and it came to its notice after receipt of a notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 Shine Star Accordingly, it is submitted that the delay is not intentional. We heard the parties on this preliminary

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4367/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

estimations. There is no definite finding on the quantum of concealment of income. It is an accepted legal position that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on additions made merely on estimations is unsustainable 4.2. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4366/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

estimations. There is no definite finding on the quantum of concealment of income. It is an accepted legal position that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on additions made merely on estimations is unsustainable 4.2. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4365/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

estimations. There is no definite finding on the quantum of concealment of income. It is an accepted legal position that penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied on additions made merely on estimations is unsustainable 4.2. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case

Usha Goyal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-43(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3695/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekusha Goyal, Vs. Dcit, Circle 43 (1), 134/135, Vaishali, Pitampura, Delhi. Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aecpg5220J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2024 Date Of Order : 09.05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 26.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Penalty Imposed Of Rs.10,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Appreciating The Facts That There Was No Non- Compliance Of Notice Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act Dated 06.11.2019 On The Scheduled Date 08.11.2019 As The Appellant Duly Filed Adjournment Before The Ld. Assessing Officer & Later On Filed All Requisite Details & Documents.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 273BSection 274

asked the appellant to show cause as to why an order imposing a penalty should not be made under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for non compliance of notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 06.11.2019. 6. In response, the appellant vide ... letter dated 15.11.2019 and 24.05.2021 furnished explanation as to why order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act should not be made in her case. The appellant submitted that an adjournment was sought on scheduled date i.e. 08.11.2019 in compliance to the notice under section 142 (1

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara

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

ITA 47/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act to Rs.3,05,953/- as against penalty of Rs.1,31,79,630/- levied by the Assessing Officer ... determining the total income of the assessee company at Rs.16,25,46,276/-. While finalising the assessment, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income on the issues appearing at Sl. Nos.1 to 7 and 10 as well as initiated penalty

The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara

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

ITA 192/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act to Rs.3,05,953/- as against penalty of Rs.1,31,79,630/- levied by the Assessing Officer ... determining the total income of the assessee company at Rs.16,25,46,276/-. While finalising the assessment, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income on the issues appearing at Sl. Nos.1 to 7 and 10 as well as initiated penalty

M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara vs. The Jt.CIT, Central Range, Vadodara

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

ITA 109/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act to Rs.3,05,953/- as against penalty of Rs.1,31,79,630/- levied by the Assessing Officer ... determining the total income of the assessee company at Rs.16,25,46,276/-. While finalising the assessment, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income on the issues appearing at Sl. Nos.1 to 7 and 10 as well as initiated penalty

M/S. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara vs. The Jt.CIT, Central Range, Vadodara

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

ITA 108/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 260ASection 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271D

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act to Rs.3,05,953/- as against penalty of Rs.1,31,79,630/- levied by the Assessing Officer ... determining the total income of the assessee company at Rs.16,25,46,276/-. While finalising the assessment, the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income on the issues appearing at Sl. Nos.1 to 7 and 10 as well as initiated penalty

Arvind Kumar Taneja (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-52(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 842/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Shreyansh Kushwaha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 148Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Delhi-18/10119/2019-20 confirming the penalty of Rs.27,300/- imposed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-52(4), Delhi [AO'] under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the 'Act']. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts ... Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, I find it is a fit case for imposing penalty in view of Explanation-III to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3 Arvind Kumar Taneja (HUF) 6. Explanation 3 of Section 271 reads as under: “Explanation 3.—Where any person

Sri Sanat Kumar Das, Kolkata vs. DCIT, (I.T.), Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 202/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 90Section 90(2)

already suffered taxation in the UK. 4.1. Ld. A/R also argued that the notice issued by the AO u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not maintainable because ld. AO had not specified whether he intended to levy penalty for concealment of income ... itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. The conditions precedent under clause (c) of section 271(1) is that the assessee should have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars.” The instant case meets the criteria for granting relief

Unicorn Infoservices Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeals Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the regular ground raised by the

ITA 4190/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Vickey Chedda/Mr. Jainam GalaFor Respondent: 02/05/2024
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2010-11 in relation to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). The relevant grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: Unicorn Infoservices ... u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) dated 29/11/2018 notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) dated 29/11/2018, refers to both the , refers to both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Learned Commissioner

Rajinder Sharma, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result appeal is allowed

ITA 5176/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2007-08 Rajinder Sharma, Vs. Acit, 1205B, Beverly Park-Ii, Gurgaon Dlf City Phase Ii, Gurgaon – 122009. Pan Aibps7516G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajinder Sharma in personFor Respondent: Ms. Mayuri, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 17(3)Section 17(3)(i)Section 17(3)(iii)Section 234Section 271(1)(c)Section 28

dated 31.12.2009 and enhanced income of assessee by Rs. 45,00,000/- charge interest under section 234 ‘A’, ‘B’ ‘C’ and penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Assessee preferred appeal before Learned Commissioner of Income Tax which was dismissed vide order dated