← 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)

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

returned income tantamount to concealment of any facts or submission or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the penalty proceeding initiated may please be annulled." 6. However, this explanation has been rejected simply

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 537/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

returned income tantamount to concealment of any facts or submission or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the penalty proceeding initiated may please be annulled." 6. However, this explanation has been rejected simply

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 536/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

returned income tantamount to concealment of any facts or submission or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the penalty proceeding initiated may please be annulled." 6. However, this explanation has been rejected simply

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 535/MUM/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

returned income tantamount to concealment of any facts or submission or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to warrant levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the penalty proceeding initiated may please be annulled." 6. However, this explanation has been rejected simply