“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)

L. S. Diamonds, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1435/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

both the appeals the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Since the underlying facts in both the appeals are identical in nature, they were heard together ... Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 1,92,040/- in A.Y. 2007-08 and Rs. 1,60,120/- in A.Y. 2009-10 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of filing of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) confirmed

Jik Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1039/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sunil TalatiFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37

Year 2015-16, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the penalty order, dated 29/06/2018, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: 2. 1 ... same be held now. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming impugned penalty of Rs 55,34,03,602/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is submitted that on the facts of the case and in view of the legal position there was absolutely

ITO-41(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Keyur Dilip Parekh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1187/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 271(1)(c)

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi)(in short, ‘CIT(A)’) dated 10/02/2023 for A.Y. 2012-13 which was filed against the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) dated 01.12.2021 by National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). 2. During the course of hearing, it is noticed that the tax effect

Modern Facilities Management Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt.Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 117/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Bharat L. Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: ShriSuresh Gaikwad, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 271(1)

passed by the learned CIT (A) dated 23rd February, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, on 30th August, 2016, by the learned Assessing Officer was also dismissed holding that delay of 189 days cannot ... filed for A.Y. 2010-11 against the order of the learned CIT (A) dated 23rd March, 2023 against the penalty order under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 30th August, 2016, wherein the delay of 119 days was not condoned by the learned

Shree Ram Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7(2)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 233/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Jaju (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

dismissed by the ld. CIT (A)-3, Jaipur vide his order dated 31.10.2014. In the meanwhile, the AO passed the Penalty Order under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on 28.03.2016 imposing penalty of Rs. 23,10,165/-. Aggrieved by the order ... making addition of Rs. 78,11,225/- as assessed vide his earlier order dated 09.07.2013. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealment of income and passed penalty order under section 271(1)(c) read with section

R P Wood Products Private Limited, Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

under section 271 AAB. It seems that the A.O had very casually used the proforma used for issuing notice before levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB ... Kamlesh D Manglani , Vinodkumar A Chugh, Dhanwantiben C Darshiyani & Chunnilal P Darshiyani in ITA Nos 556/AHD/2018 to 599/Ahd/2018 deleted the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c ) of the I.T.Act as well as penalties levied u/s 271AAB of the I.T.Act on the income voluntary disclosed in the returns of income

Ghanshyam Tak, Naya Ghar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

H K Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO-34(2)(1) Current Juridiction, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1109/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

appeal against the order of assessment passed under section 143(3) read with section 147. The Assessing Officer subsequently initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) by issuing notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c). The assessee, in response, submitted before the Assessing Officer that ... bogus purchases and that in case where the addition is made by applying GP percentage on bogus purchases, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is warranted. The Ld.AR in this regard relied on the decision of co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Fancy Diamonds India

Shri Nanubhai Govindbhi Ahir, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)(3), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 256/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Nanubhai Govindbhai Ahir, I.T.O., 143, Sultanabad, Dumas-Ambawadi, Ward-2(3)(3), Vs. Surat-394270. Surat. Pan: Atgpa 0140 A Appellant Respondednt

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the additions on the basis of which penalty Nanubhai Govindbhai Ahir Vs ITO under Section 271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer has already been deleted by the Tribunal in appeal against quantum assessment in ITA No. 2289/Ahd/2016 dated

Chevron Metal Products P Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-45, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 999/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 999/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Chevron Metal बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle 8(2) Products Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 22-A Panton Bunder Road, Mumbai-400020. Near, Britannia Darukhana, Raey Road, Mumbai- 400010. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2190E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai Dated 21.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This Is Second Round Of Litigation. Since The Aforesaid Appeal Was Heard Along With Ita. Nos. 1000 & 1001/Mum/2022 & Order Pronounced On 29.11.2022, However, By Way Of An M.A, It Was Brought To Our Notice That We Have Not Passed The Order In Ita. No. 999/Mum/2022 For Ay 2011-12, So, We Have Recalled Our Order (Supra) For The Limited Purpose For Adjudicating The Penalty Appeal In Ita. No. 999/Mum/2022. Therefore, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Has Challenged The Penalty Levied By Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Issuing A Valid Notice

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta (Sr. AR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

DCIT (It) -4(2) (2), Mumbai vs. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Canada

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1929/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 1928 & 1929/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Soumendu Kumar DasFor Respondent: P.J. Pardiwala &

Section 143(2)Section 245Q(1)

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 1928 & 1929/Mum/2022 DCIT (IT) 4(2)(2) Vs. Sun Life Assurance Company of

DCIT (It) -4(2) (2), Mumbai vs. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, Canada

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1928/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 1928 & 1929/Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Soumendu Kumar DasFor Respondent: P.J. Pardiwala &

Section 143(2)Section 245Q(1)

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 1928 & 1929/Mum/2022 DCIT (IT) 4(2)(2) Vs. Sun Life Assurance Company of

Rajnish J. Karki, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-32(5), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9806/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajnish J. Karki Ito L-1/13, Hauz Khas Enclave, Vs Ward-32(5) New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Ajepk8684C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 275

assessee read as under :- 1. (a) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in not considering that the order passed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act is barred by the limitation under section 275 of the Act. (b) That in this connection, the learned

Satish Anant Bhadri, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

ITA 914/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishore ChaudhariFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Year 2014-15, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Penalty Order, dated 16/03/2021, passed under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The relevant facts in brief are that the vide order dated ... 16/03/2022 3. the Assessing Officer levied penalty of INR 10,000/- under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act holding that the Appellant failed to comply with notice dated 20/11/2019 during the assessment proceedings. In appeal before CIT(A), the Appellant submitted that the Appellant 4. had complied with

Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 636/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. G. Ginde/ Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

ITO, Ward-1, Palghar vs. Sunil Shamlal Mishra, Palghar

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1111/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary: A.Y: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Paresh DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sathe

Section 271(1)(c)

Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2 Sunil Shamlal Mishra 2. We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee ... assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made addition towards Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.6.50 crores. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the above said addition. In the meantime, the assessee challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the quantum

Osgl Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9029/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. S. C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kr. Bansal, Sr. DR

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

Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory: 359 ITR 565 held that notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where ... mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. 2) Bombay High Court: Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs ACIT Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, order

Rameedevi Mulnath Sidh, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rameedevi Mulnath Sidh, I.T.O., 303, Shankheswar Complex, Yogi Ward 2(3)(4), Vs. Park, Althan, Surat, Gujarat-395017 Surat. Pan No. Adips 9728 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the A.O., hence, penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be levied. Further, the division bench of this Tribunal in Ramesh Bhai Kanjibhai Patel Vs DCIT (supra) held that no penalty ... Rameedevi Mulnath Sidh Vs ITO under Section 271(1)(b) of the act could be levied when an assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer is deemed to have condoned the absence of the assessee or his authorised representative on earlier occasions

Dhanraj Sethia, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1

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

ITA 169/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

ignoring the fact that the penalty notice dated 04-03-2014 is bad in law as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which the penalty proceedings have been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate ... vague notice. In this respect, attention of the Bench was drawn by the ld. AR towards impugned notice issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1) of the Act dated 04-03-2014 and the same is reproduced as under:- 4 DHANRAJ SETHIA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR ‘’Penalty Notice

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1018/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 32ASection 801ASection 80I

Railway Siding amounting to Rs. 75,52,11,139/- is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 is separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.‖ (Empahsis Supplied) 9.5. During the appellant proceedings before