“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.Actif Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

ITA 1336/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT- D.R. &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and against the confirmation of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the identical grounds except the difference in amount of addition/disallowance inter alia that (grounds are taken from ... basis of assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act for making various additions/disallowances penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the quantum appeal filed by the assessee

M/S.Actif Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai

ITA 1335/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT- D.R. &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT, Cir-6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Diageo India Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2858/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci 3378 L Diageo India P. Ltd. Dcit 4Th Floor, Nicholas Piramal Tower Rg 6(2)(2) Peninsula Corporate Park, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mk Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

Initiation of penalty proceedings ITA no.1002&2858/Mum/2016 Diageo India Private Limited; A.Y. 11–12 29. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for various proposed disallowances / additions. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another. The Assessee craves

Diageo India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1002/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 92BSection 92C

Superflo Filter Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessement Centre, Delhi

ITA 1588/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588 & 1589/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) National Faceless Superflo Filters Pvt. Assessment Centre, Ltd. Delhi B-5/103-104 Greenland बनाम/ Co-Op. Society, Vs. Shrinivas Bagarka Road, J. B. Nagar Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs4955N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri U. Singh, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 23.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 31.05.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri U. Singh, Ld. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

circumstances of the case and in law, was learned CIT(A) right in deleting the penalty of Rs 12,28,633 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. To adjudicate on this grievance, only a few facts need to be referred ... interest for funds used for purchase of land. It was for this reason that a penalty of Rs 12,28,630 under section 271(1)(c) was also imposed on the assessee for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and for concealment of income. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Wns Global; Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

assessment year under consideration as per the provisions of the Act. 10. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the above ground of appeal is without prejudice to and independent of one another. The Appellant craves leave

M/S Stratergic Capital Corporation Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4013/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s

DCIT-14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2383/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Cross Objection No. 52/Mum/2020 (Arising In Ita No. 2383/Mum/2019 For A.Y. 10-11)

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Tejandra Pal Singh, DR

Nbc Fashion India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1756/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Nbc Fashion India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Splendor Forum, 4Th Floor, Units Tax, Tax Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai 401-412, Jasola District Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, New Delhi-100 025 Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Aadcn0495L Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

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. That

Oocl Logistics (India ). P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7024/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 234DSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C(2)Section 92C(3)Section 92D

learned AO erred in levying interest under Section 234D on account of interest on excess refund granted. 8. Initiation of Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(C) The learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Appellant prays that the adjustment in relation

Minal Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT (OSD) Cir-10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, present appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 597/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 249(1)Section 250

dismissed. However, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the Assessing Officer has levied penalty of Rs. 30,85,632 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the learned CIT(A) to decided the appeal electronically filed by the assessee

DCIT Central Circle -1(2), Mumbai vs. Raj Hiten Parikh, Mumbai

ITA 1224/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1224 & 1226/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07 & 2007-08) Raj Hiten Parikh Dcit Cen. Cir-1(2), R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Annex 42C, Laxmi Nivas, 87, बिधम/ Building, Pratistha Bhavan, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 006

For Respondent: Shri Anuj, Ld. AR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year 2007-08 on account of peak credit in HSBC Bank. Accordingly, penalty has been levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the assessment years by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the ITAT Mumbai vide order dated ... impugned appeal order from pages 6 to 18. Accordingly, he held that once the quantum itself has been deleted, then penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable and does not survive. 4. In view of the aforesaid fact that when the Tribunal itself has deleted

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

ITA 1540/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 817/मुं/2015 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 1540/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) Mr. Nitin Parkash , 221/222, Swasstik Plaza, Pokhran Road No.2, Subhash Nagar, Thane (W) – 400 601 Pan: Aaspp-1411-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 3, Thane. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Akash Kumar ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.817/Mum/2015 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 01/01/2015 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. This Appeal Is In The Second Round Before The Tribunal. Earlier This Appeal Of The Assessee Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 19/03/2018. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Miscellaneous Application, Vide Ma No.271/Mum/2018 Seeking

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi

Section 2(14)Section 48

dated 31/12/2013 is vague, hence defective. The notice has been issued in a Performa without striking off the irrelevant limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Full Bench ... 271(supra) is defective. We find that the said notice (at page-30 of the paper book) is ambiguous. The irrelevant clause of section 271(1)(c) of the Act has not been struck off while issuing the notice. The notice mentions both the limbs of section 271(1

Damco International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7447/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Poras Kaka, Sr.Advocate with Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: S/ Shri B.K.Bagchi & Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

No.8 to 10 of the appeal are dismissed. 16. In ground of appeal No.12, the assessee has assailed initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Challenge to penalty proceedings at this stage is premature, hence, ground No.12 of appeal is dismissed. 17. In the result

Nitin Parkash, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

ITA 817/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajiv Khandelwal and Akash KumarFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen& Shri B.K.Bagchi

Section 2(14)Section 48

Eit Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 210/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92D

India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 7 of 66 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings a. That the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise. the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

M/S Joy Packaging Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4821/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs. 46,582/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. This appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal initially on 01.12.2021, ex parte, without presence of the assessee. Subsequently the assessee moved

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

returned income of the Appellant. 6.2 The learned AO has erred in law and on facts in proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant

Tekla India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 211/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 40

under Section 234D of the Act 17. erred in upholding the levy of interest under Section 234D of the Act: Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act Trimble Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.211/Mum./2016 18. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mum, Bai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1386/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessee for six different assessment years starting from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19 against the confirmation of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) & 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai ... compliance on or before 5 March 2020. The assessee did not file any adjournment nor furnish any details and therefore, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1) (b) of the Act dated 8th December