“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)

Sanjiv Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2672/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2671 & 2672/Del/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Garg, Adv. &

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

that the observations made in the assessment proceedings are quite vague and non-descript for the purposes of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As stated, the assessee is entitled in law to defend the show cause notice based on exact nature of default ... sufficiently demonstrated the total absence of any satisfaction recorded in the assessment order as well as show cause notice for imposition of penalty. Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 271(1B) requires that the Assessing Officer must be satisfied towards the exact nature of default allegedly committed by the assesse before

Sanjiv Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2671/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2671 & 2672/Del/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Garg, Adv. &

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

Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 54B

deduction u/s 54B of the Act, to the assessee. 14. Ground Nos. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee relate the penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act and 271F of the Act respectively, we note that these grounds are premature in nature, hence do not require adjudication

Vishal Bansal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

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

ITA 58/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

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

assessment year 2012-13 dated 18.01.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur, under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2 Vishal Bansal 2. The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal; “ 1 ... erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO, in levying penalty of Rs. 3,16,891, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief please be granted

Tirupati Reddy Mukku, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-27(3), Mumbai

ITA 857/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil NatekarFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year 2010-11, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the penalty order, dated 28/05/2014, 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 The learned ... income of INR 2,30,96,506/-), as the assessed income. The Assessing Officer also recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty 6. proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings by issuance of notice dated 28/11/2013. During the penalty proceedings, the Appellant filed reply dated 07/05/2017

Qad India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is disposed off as being general in nature, Ground No. 2 relating to selection of comparables is partly allowed in terms of paragraph 5 to 6

ITA 4098/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, Ms. RiddhiFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the decision of the AO in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act” The relevant facts in brief are that Appellant is a company primarily 3. engaged in provision of software development, support ... levy/charge of interest is disposed off as being consequential in nature and Ground No. 7 related to initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is dismissed as being premature. Balance grounds (i.e. Ground No. 3 and 5) are dismissed as not pressed as no submissions

Vijayaben Rambhai Vaja, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 284/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot23 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. 7. ITA Nos. 282, 283 & 284/Ahd/2022 are penalty appeals as against the orders passed under section 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act, the same becomes infructuous as the main reassessment order is set aside back to the file

Vijayaben Rambhai Vaja, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 283/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot23 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Vijayaben Rambhai Vaja, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 282/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot23 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Vijayaben Rambhai Vaja, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Rajkot

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 281/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot23 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Dhl Logistics P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1249/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhdhl Logistics Private Vs. National E-Assessment Limited, 201A, Silver Centre Utopia, Cardinal Gracias Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Road, Chakala, Assistant Commissioner Andheri (East) Of Income Tax/Income Mumbai – 400099 Tax Officer, National E- Assessment Centre Delhi स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm6824H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/ Darshan Dalal Respondent By : Jayant B Jhaveri Date Of Hearing 19.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(Drp-1), Mumbai, Dated 15.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Order Dated 1 November 2019 Passed By The Learned Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing)-1(2)(2), Mumbai ('Ld. Tpo) Under Section 92Ca Of The Act Is Beyond The Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 92Ca(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act), Thus Making The Transfer Pricing Order & Resultant Final Assessment Order Dated 30 April 2021 Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Null & Void & Liable To Be Quashed. The Following Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Ground 1 Above.

For Appellant: Madhur Agrawal/Fenil Bhatt/For Respondent: Jayant B Jhaveri

Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92CSection 92D

learned AO be directed to delete the interest under section 234A of the Act. 6. Penalty Proceeding under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act 1961 should be dropped. P a g e | 3 DHL Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National E-assessment Centre ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has neither concealed any particulars of its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of the income. The Appellant

Neelam Garg, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward No. 3, Karnal

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6250/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargneelam Garg, Vs. Ito, Hem Chand Jain, H. No. 2, Ward No. 3, Huda Staff Owarter, No. 1, Karnal Sector-13, Extn, Karnal, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ainpg2119D Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/06/2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

Dilip N. Shroff Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and Another [2007] 291 ITR 519 has held as under: “Clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, categorically states that penalty would be leviable if the assessee conceals particulars of his income or furnishes inaccurate particulars

Jatinder Pal Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi

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

ITA 1670/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Delhi dated 15.12.2017 pertaining to the AY 2011-12 confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. Although assessee has raised various grounds but ld. Counsel for the assessee began with an additional ground which ... High Court in this regard is as under :- “21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

Dhanraj Distributors (P) Ltd., Indore vs. DCIT (1), Indore

ITA 950/IND/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(2)Section 68

representing the assessee opened his arguments by carrying our attention to the show-notice dated 07.12.2007 issued by AO u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c), placed in the case-record. Referring to same, Ld. AR submitted that the AO has stated as under: “Whereas in the course ... According to Ld. AR, the notice dated 07.12.2007 issued by AO is very much vague in as much it contains stereotype language of section 271(1)(c). The Ld. AR contended that by saying that the assessee has “concealed the particulars of income” or “furnished inaccurate particulars of Page

Reliable Constructions, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax Circle 21(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 958/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalreliable Constructions, 1St Floor, Rohini Chs Ltd, Building No. 10, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon West, Mumbai-400 104 Pan: Aaifr7192E ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-21(3) Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. AR – CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 43CSection 56(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Pawanveer Singh, Hapur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(5), Hapur

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

ITA 1474/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pawanveer Singh, Vs Ito, Revoti Kunj, Railway Road, Ward-2(3)(5), Hapur, Uttar Pradesh-245101. Hapur. Pan-Afcpk0624F Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri K.M.Gupta, Adv. & Muninder Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 69

mother-in-law. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. AO has erred in imposing interest under

Fancy Diamonds India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 963/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Years 2010-11 to 2012-13. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) in all the three years under consideration. 2. The facts relating ... Rs.1,74,158/-, Rs.6,40,981/- and Rs.21,93,310/- respectively in Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the orders of above said penalty in all the three years and hence, assessee has filed

Fancy Diamonds India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 962/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Fancy Diamonds India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-5(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 961/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Mr. Tirlok Nath Mahajan, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 47/ASR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 194ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

facts of the case by sustaining the penalty amounting to Rs. 1,82,938/- imposed by the Learned Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 I.T.A. No. 47/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 2. That the above imposition of penalty made in the case of the Appellant ... facts of the case by sustaining the penalty amounting to Rs. 1,82,938/- imposed by the Learned Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case. The Ld. AR submitted that in the quantum appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted