“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)

M/S. Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3991/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3989/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3990/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 5179/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 3991/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 3992/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Rajiv Saxena & Co. Adv. & Solictors, Central Circle-1, H.O. 318-D, Mayur Vihar, Phase-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi-110091 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca4321K Assessee By : Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. & Sh. Shyam Sunder, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 145Section 153Section 153A

assessee. From the above, it is evident that the assessee has concealed its income/furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) is hereby initiated. (Addition : Rs. 87,56,363/-) 9. Thus, on going through

M/S. Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3990/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 145Section 153Section 153A

M/S. Allied Perfumers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3989/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 145Section 153Section 153A

Kanpur Fertilizers & Cement Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Noida

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

ITA 6671/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediac.O.No.-37/Del/2020 [In Ita No.6671/Del/2019] [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Dcit, Vs Kanpur Fertilizers & Cement Ltd., Circle-2, Sector-128, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201304. Pan-Aadck9974B Appellant Respondent

both on the ground of alleged concealment of income and of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without pointing out any specific default under section 271(1)(c). As such too the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 6. That

Sobh Ram, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5459/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshsobh Ram, Vs. Ito, S/O. Dalip Singh, H. No. 54, Ward-4, Village & Tehsil-Israna, Panipat, Panipat Haryana-132103 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arkpr1660E Assessee By : Sh. Satyam Aneja, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Satyam Aneja, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for the alleged default of the provisions of section 271(1)(b) of the IT Act 1961 has wrongly & arbitrarily been imposed which is unjustified and not called for. 2. That the appellant has complied ... counsel submitted that the AO imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- for the alleged default of provisions of Sobh Ram section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wrongly and arbitrarily imposed which is quite unjustified and not called for. The ld counsel submitted that during the assessment

Shri Sanjaykumar Babulal Jain, Mum vs. DCIT, CC-6(3), Mum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Sanjaykumar Babulal Jain, Dcit, Cc-6(3), 28, Kewal Industries Estate, Sb 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Marg, Lower Parel (W), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aefpj 7802 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Karan Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.S. Sant, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Karan Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.S. Sant, DR

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

translate into actual penalty proceedings. These proceedings proceedings. These proceedings, in fact, commence with the , in fact, commence with the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section statutory notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section statutory notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section ... through the assessee. But that translates into action only through the assessee. But that translates into action only through the statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), read with section statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), read with section statutory notice under section 271(1)(c), read with section

Delhi State Taxi Operators Co-Operative Thrift Credit & Services Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range - 60, New Delhi

ITA 3108/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

regarding penalty proceedings under section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceedings to be initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, in so far as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore no such

Delhi State Taxi Operators Co-Operative Thrift Credit & Services Society Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT Range - 60, New Delhi

ITA 3107/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 275

Babita Khurana, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 3218/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

appearing for the Assessee submitted that the penalty order passed is invalid, as in the show cause notice issued u/s. 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer has not mentioned the specific limb under which he intended to levy penalty. In this context, he drew our attention ... adverse against the Assessee, the Assessing Officer accepted the income declared in the revised returns of income. Thus, he submitted, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) is not applicable. Finally, he submitted, while deciding Assessee’s appeal on levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act under

Babita Khurana, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 3217/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

ITO, Ward-2(3), Dehradun vs. Sanjay Ghai, Dehradun

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

ITA 1926/DEL/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 2000-01

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

case. 4. As regards ITA No.1926/Del/2018 is concerned, the ground pertains to deletion of addition of Rs.12,03,491/- being penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). Both the parties fairly agreed that the tax effect in this case is below ... been disputed by the Revenue. In such circumstances, when penalty notice is an omnibus notice and the charge is not specified, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act will not survive. This view was recently reiterated by Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench

ITO, Ward-2(3), Dehradun vs. Sanjay Ghai, Dehradun

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

ITA 1925/DEL/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2023AY 1997-98

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

M/S. Dharti Treders, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2 (1) (2), Rajkot

In the result, the penalty for non-appearance is directed to be restricted to the first default on part of the assessee in not complying with the notice of hearing i

ITA 32/RJT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot26 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

deleted. In the case Smt. Rekha Rani v. DCIT 60 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi - Trib.), the Delhi ITAT held that penalty under section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed for each and every notice issued under section 143(2), which remained not complied with on part of assessee, but it should ... therefore, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- could be imposed for the first default made by the assessee in this regard. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could not be imposed for each and every notice issued under Section 143(2), which remained not complied with on the part

Shapoorji Pallonji Infrastructure Capital Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 2738/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2023AY 2004-05

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

Section 271(1)(c)

directed against the orders passed by the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi confirming the penalty levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this ... dismissing the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn. 4. On receipt of the said order, the Assessing Officer passed penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levying the penalty of Rs.1,07,77,247/- on the amount of Rs.2.93 crores (referred supra). The said penalty order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Parsoli Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7465/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Brajendra KumarFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 68

hearing on 20/09/2011. However the Assessee failed to comply with the aforesaid notice and therefore, a show cause notice was issued under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on 02/11/2011 asking the Assessee to appear for the hearing fixed on 08/11/2011. However, the Assessee did not appear in response ... aforesaid notice and therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act was levied on the Assessee on 14/11/2011. Again notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 21/11/2011 requiring the Assessee to appear for hearing on 25/11/2011. However, no compliance was made by the Assessee

Late Jitender Sapra (Through Wife Anjali Sapra), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 50(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2109/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 159Section 162Section 2(31)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271ASection 271B

processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has imposed a penalty of Rs. 60,000/- under section 271(1)(b) of Income Tax Act in this case. The AO pointed out in the penalty order that the assessee failed to comply with notices

Lord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

ITA 424/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaillord India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited (F Ormer Ly Know N A S L Ord Of Income-Tax, Circle- India C Hem Ica L Pr Od Uct S Pv T. Lt D. ) 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, A/401-404, 215 – Atrium Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri – Kurla M.K. Road, Road Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0785H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Dr. Samual Pitta Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 26.02.2015 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Transfer Pricing - Availing Of Intra-Group Services 1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Acit/ Drp Erred In Determining The Arm'S Length Price In Relation To The International Transaction Relating To The Availing Of Group Benefit Services/ Technical Service Management Services (Hereinafter Referred To As "Intra-Group Services") Of Rs.1,14,87,092 To Be Rs. 22,97,418/-, Thus Making An Adjustment Of Rs.91,89,674/- & Thereby Disregarding The Fact That The Appellant Had Received The Services For The Purposes Of Its Business. In Doing So, The Learned Acit/ Drp Grossly Erred By Not Appreciating The Commercial Wisdom/ Expediency Of The Appellant

For Appellant: M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Dr. Samual Pitta

Section 40

learned ACIT erred in not granting credit for DDT of Rs.37,17,656/- paid by the appellant. 5. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 5.1 The learned ACIT erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.2 The learned ... accompanied with a notice of demand u/s 156 of the act and also a show cause notice of penalty u/s 274 read with Section 271 (1) (C) of the act along with the draft assessment order and therefore the procedure of passing the draft assessment order has not been followed

Dhankot Filling Station, Gurgaon vs. Pr.CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 275Section 69A

ground that i) the commission of Rs. 47,925/- had been paid without deduction of TDS and was not allowable; ii) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had not been initiated; and iii) Penalty under Section 271A and 271B of the Act had not been initiated. Accordingly ... lacs in the earlier year. Further, the Tribunal observed that the CIT cannot direct the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and that the penalty proceedings under Sections 271A and 271B of the Act are not related to the assessment

Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan, Meena, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(a)Section 35ASection 80GSection 92C

concerning AY 2009-10. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of Rs.1,54,369/- on disallowance of Rs.4,99,579/- claimed under I.T.A No.491/Del/2020 2 Section 80G of the Act and another penalty under Section 271 ... When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the impugned order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 26.03.2019 concerning Assessment Year 2009-10 in question is barred by limitation and therefore, is nullity in law. To justify

Savita Bansal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-35(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8937/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajareswari R, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54FSection 68

Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 25.07.2019 arising from the penalty order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) r.w. Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2015-16. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee ... challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs.17,89,670/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. I.T.A No.8937/Del/2019 2 3. Briefly stated, the assessee in the instant case filed her return of income declaring total income at Rs.83,67,310/- against the returned income of Rs.8