← 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)

Divya Construction, Ranchi, Jharkhand vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Ranchi, Jharkhand

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 142/RAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271D

against the ex parte orders of the ld. CIT(A) for the various assessment years confirming the penalties levied under various provisions of Section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), 271AAC and Section 271D. As the quantum appeals have all been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer

Divya Construction, Ranchi, Jharkhand vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Ranchi, Jharkhand

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/RAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271D

against the ex parte orders of the ld. CIT(A) for the various assessment years confirming the penalties levied under various provisions of Section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), 271AAC and Section 271D. As the quantum appeals have all been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer

Divya Construction, Ranchi, Jharkhand vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Ranchi, Jharkhand

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 140/RAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271D

against the ex parte orders of the ld. CIT(A) for the various assessment years confirming the penalties levied under various provisions of Section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), 271AAC and Section 271D. As the quantum appeals have all been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer

Divya Construction, Ranchi, Jharkhand vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Ranchi, Jharkhand

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 139/RAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271D

against the ex parte orders of the ld. CIT(A) for the various assessment years confirming the penalties levied under various provisions of Section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), 271AAC and Section 271D. As the quantum appeals have all been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer

Divya Construction, Ranchi, Jharkhand vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Ranchi

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/RAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 271(1)(b)Section 271D

against the ex parte orders of the ld. CIT(A) for the various assessment years confirming the penalties levied under various provisions of Section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), 271AAC and Section 271D. As the quantum appeals have all been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer

Dhirendra Pratap, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Ward-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 467/LKW/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dhirendra Pratap V. The Income Tax Officer A-16/1052, Sector 15 Ward 3(2) Near Vasundhra Complex Hardoi Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ayepp3148C (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 06.11.2018 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,75,750/-. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash To The Tune Of Rs.19,81,000/- In His Bank Account. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued A Query Letter Under Section 133(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On 04.01.2018, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash Deposits Along With Other Evidentiary Proof, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Reply On 07.02.2018. Since

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.21,56,750/-. 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which set aside the order of the AO and restored the matter

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Radhika Jewellers, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1263/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the penalty order levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 1263/Ahd/2025 ... proceedings liable to be dropped. However, the assessing officer not accepted the above reply and imposed minimum penalty of Rs.62,11,054/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the penalty by holding

Nagaiah Kekkireni, Suryapet vs. ITO., Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 932/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 30/03/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), 2 ITA 932/Hyd/2025 Nagaiah Kekkireni vs. ITO dated 29/08/2019 for the Assessment Year ... with an addition of agricultural income of Rs. 60,000/-. 4. The AO, while culminating the assessment, had also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of the particulars of income. Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 271(1

Rajroop Doshi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Sarkar, DR
Section 124(3)Section 127Section 127(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

petition is allowed. Consequential proceedings are also set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the notice dated 6th January, 2010 regarding the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G.A.No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed

ITO, Mumbai vs. Spark Diamonds, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5566/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

impugned order emanated from the order of the Income-tax Officer, Ward 19(3)(4), Mumbai (for brevity, the “Ld. AO”), passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date 26/03/2019. 2 Spark Diamonds 2. When the appeal was called for hearing none was present on behalf

Intertek India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 2904/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143

pressed and hence dismissed. 11. The Ground No. 13 raised by the assessee is challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act which would have no legs to stand in view of the aforesaid decision on grounds raised on merits. 12. In the result

Intertek India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 2903/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143

pressed and hence dismissed. 11. The Ground No. 13 raised by the assessee is challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act which would have no legs to stand in view of the aforesaid decision on grounds raised on merits. 12. In the result

Bombardier Transportation Gmbh, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5732/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

2 ITA No 5732/Del/2011 (AY 2008-09) ITA Nos.4547 & 4511/Del/2017 (AY 2009-10) अपीलार्थी द्वारा / Appellant by प्रतिवादीद्वारा /Respondent by

Anjaneya Ispat Limited, Jamshedpur vs. CIT(A), Jamshedpur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 191/RAN/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.191/Ran/2023 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Cit(A), Jamshedpur.………….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 18.01.2019 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Instant Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.01.2019 Passed By The Cit(A) Under Section 271(1)(C) Read With Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Whereby The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined At ₹37,00,000, As Against The Income Originally Assessed. Consequent To The Said Appellate Order, The Assessing Officer Initiated Penalty Proceedings & Passed An Order Dated 18.01.2019 Under Section 270A(1)(C) Of The Act, Imposing A Penalty Of ₹27,00,000, Being 200% Of The Tax Alleged To Be Evaded, On The Addition Of ₹37,00,000. I.T.A. No.191/Ran/2023 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd

Section 250Section 270A(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 18.01.2019 passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the instant appeal has been ... filed by the assessee against the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) read with section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby the total income of the assessee was determined at ₹37,00,000, as against the income originally assessed. Consequent

Income Tax Offier, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana vs. Balpreet Singh, Ludhiana

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

ITA 1022/CHANDI/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Balpreet Singh, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 251Section 69A

115BBE of the Act, and the total income was assessed at Rs.33,09,10,575/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and under section 271(1)(b) for failure to comply with statutory notices. 4. Against the order

Jamnaben Parshottamdas Patel, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward(1), Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1801/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and in facts by confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c), despite full disclosure of income in the return and during assessment proceedings. There was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars; hence ... thus the element of concealment does not appear in the present matter. Thought the quantum is confirmed while for invoking section 271(1)(c) the element of filing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income, these two conditions either has to be followed and substantiated

Prestigious Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -18, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1050/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment orders dated 18.03.2016 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and dated 16.09.2016 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income ... this case. 3. Aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) in dismissing its appeals qua orders u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and under section 271(1)(c), the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-27, New Delhi, failed

Prestigious Enterprises Private Limited, Delhi vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Centre Circle - 18, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1046/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment orders dated 18.03.2016 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and dated 16.09.2016 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income ... this case. 3. Aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) in dismissing its appeals qua orders u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and under section 271(1)(c), the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-27, New Delhi, failed

Krishna Construction, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1 Ranchi, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/RAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaykrishna Construction, D.C.I.T., Plot No. 59, New A G Cooperative Circle-1, Vs. Colony, Near Dav Kapildev, Ranchi. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaacb 7934 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2014-15/10301346 dated 23/10/2024 for the A.Y. 2015-16 against the confirmation of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 2. Shri Vinay Kumar Jalan, ld. A.R. is represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri

Marut Paper Products Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 1, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

ITA 393/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

IV/KNP/10788/2015-16 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. 2. In this case, penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) amounting to Rs.47,21,400/- was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) vide