← 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)

Vijay Spinning Mills Limited, Krishna District vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 181/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.181/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Vijay Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of 5-111-10, Vsm Quarters Income Tax Ganguru, Penamaluru Mandal Circle-1(1) Krishna Dist. Vijayawada [Pan : Aaacv7518B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Dt. Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044219637(1) Dated 28.07.2022 Arising Out Of The Orders Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) Dated 26.03.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

quashed. The CIT(Appeal) disposed off the appeal in a hurry. 4. The order of the Learned Assessing Officer [“the Ld.AO”] under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 26th March, 2022 is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 5. The order

ITO 34(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Asit Pareshkumar Desai, Mumbai

ITA 279/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Years: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Saboo &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) 2 Shri Asit Pareshkumar Desai under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2010-11 on the grounds inter-alia that: “1. Whether ... total income of Rs.7,42,140/- by way of making addition of Rs.3,68,305/-, penalty proceedings have been initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by way of issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing the inaccurate

Income Tax Officer-17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavin Vinod Shah, Mumbai

ITA 250/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Bharat B. Chovatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Parsoon Kabra, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] deleting the penalty of Rs.1,49,090/- & Rs.1,02,370/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the ITA Nos.250 & 249/M/2023 2 Shri Bhavin Vinod Shah ... same was restricted by the Tribunal to 12.5% of the alleged non genuine purchases, penalty proceedings have been initiated by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, the AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.1,49,090/- & Rs.1

Income Tax Officer-17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavin Vinod Shah, Mumbai

ITA 249/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Bharat B. Chovatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Parsoon Kabra, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] deleting the penalty of Rs.1,49,090/- & Rs.1,02,370/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the ITA Nos.250 & 249/M/2023 2 Shri Bhavin Vinod Shah ... same was restricted by the Tribunal to 12.5% of the alleged non genuine purchases, penalty proceedings have been initiated by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, the AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.1,49,090/- & Rs.1

Ankit Diamonds, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3127/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 5. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before

Ankit Diamonds, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3125/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 5. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before

Mita Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addll. CIT - CC - 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1817/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15
Section 269TSection 271E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Shri Vajubhai N. Kanani, Amreli vs. The ITO, Ward-2(4), Amreli

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 29/RJT/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 29/Rjt/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Vajubhai N. Kanani The I.T.O., बनाम/ Prop. Of M/S. Krishna Ward-2(4), Amreli Vs. Construction, At – Malsika, Tal. Dhari, Amreli "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afppk0597L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Written Submission (None) ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 05/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 20/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.01.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 25.04.2013 Passed By The Learned Ito, Ward-2(4), Amreli Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As To ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2007-08. Ita No. 29/Rjt/2020 (Shri Vajubhai N. Kanani Vs. Ito) A. Y. 2007-08 - 2- 2. None Appeared At The Time Of Call On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, The Ld. Dr Appeared & Made His Submission In Favour Of The Orders Passed By The Authorities Below In Imposing Penalty For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: Written Submission (None)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

arising out of the penalty order dated 25.04.2013 passed by the Learned ITO, Ward-2(4), Amreli under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2007-08. ITA No. 29/Rjt/2020 (Shri Vajubhai N. Kanani ... income of Rs.31,23,930/- upon making inter alia addition of Rs.24,90,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loan. Penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for unexplained unsecured loan of Rs.24,90,000/-. A notice dated

Kalpana Jhala, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 5(4), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 127Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

here in after ld. NFAC/CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2012-13 which in turn arise from the order dated 15.02.2022 passed under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after to as Act ] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. 2 Kalpana Jhala

Tinku Kumar Mittal, Jaipur vs. ITO 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

delay of 1 (one) day in filing the present appeal. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 relates to confirming the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty levied under ... section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act at Rs. 1,40,524/-. At the outset, the ld. A/R for the assessee submitted that while passing the final order of penalty, no notice in this regard had been received by the appellant, therefore, order passed under section 271(1

Gaurav Gauba, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1286/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 144Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVl, New Delhi has erred both in law and on facts in upholding penalty of Rs. 1,73,582/- under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. 2 2. That while upholding levy of penalty, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that since ... particulars of income and such a notice could not have been made a basis either to levy penalty or sustain the penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act 3. That furthermore, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there was no specific charge

Mr. Suresh Henry Thomas, Mumbai vs. ITO - 9(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 384/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Wadhwa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer (AO) to the tune of Rs.18,92,513/- and Rs.13,20,370/- for A.Y. 2008-09 & 2011-12 respectively under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) by raising identically worded grounds except the difference in the penalty amount (grounds ... Nos.383 & 384/M/2021 4 Mr. Suresh Henry Thomas liability and salary disallowance respectively for A.Y. 2011-12, initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs.18

Mr Suresh Henry Thomas, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 383/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Wadhwa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer (AO) to the tune of Rs.18,92,513/- and Rs.13,20,370/- for A.Y. 2008-09 & 2011-12 respectively under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) by raising identically worded grounds except the difference in the penalty amount (grounds ... Nos.383 & 384/M/2021 4 Mr. Suresh Henry Thomas liability and salary disallowance respectively for A.Y. 2011-12, initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs.18

Shri Shivnarayan, Indore vs. The ITO 4 (4), Indore

ITA 396/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Shivnarayan Ito-4(4) 88, Ushapura, Agra, Indore बनाम/ (Tehsil-Depalpur, Now Hatod) Vs. Indore - 453115 (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Cufps 2850 H Assessee By Shri S. N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2023

Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

erred in maintaining penalty of Rs. 10,000/- as levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for non-compliance of the notices issued during the course of Page 1 of 5 Shri Shivnarayan Assessment year 2012-13 assessment-proceedings without

Pooja Upadhyay, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

here in after ld. NFAC/CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2012-13 which in turn arise from the order dated 21.01.2020 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after to as Act ] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. 2 Pooja Upadhyay vs. ITO, Ward ... notice (SCN) issued u/s 274 and the consequent impugned penalty order dated 21.01.2020, is quite vague and does not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated and/or imposed i.e., whether for concealment particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

M.A Projects Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, New Delhi

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

ITA 1636/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

sustainable in law as there was no valid initiation of penalty proceedings for this addition.” 3. In this case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was levied upon the assessee on account of additions for unexplained cash credit and commission ... Court held as under :- “Head Note only : S.271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment –Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, - Order is bad in law – Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through

Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma S/O. Sh. Rakha Ram, Kotkapura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Faridkot

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 111/ASR/2019[2011-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2011-11

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271Section 44ASection 80C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Sh.Suresh Kumar Sharma.S/O Sh. Rakha Ram, Kotkapura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3 (3), Faidkot

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 110/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250Section 271Section 44ASection 80C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Kavita Chaudhary, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Meerut

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1317/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: N o n e
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

1317/Del/2021 Centre [NFAC] [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)] New Delhi, dated 16.08.2021 for assessment year 2011-12 in sustaining the penalty levied under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. In spite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee ... adjournment was moved. The Assessing Officer passed penalty order under section 271(1)(b) of the Act on 5.11.2018 as the assessee had not made compliance to the notice issued under section 142(1) dated 28.09.2018, which was served on the assessee requiring the assessee to file relevant papers

Vansh Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-26(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6051/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

that penalty order is bad in law as the penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without specifying the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the 2 I.T.A. No. 6051/Del/2019 penalty notice issued u/s 274 read with ... section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act which is placed at page 88 of paper book submitted that the notice was issued mechanically stating that assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. In other words, the notice was issued for both the limbs