← 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)

Asst. CIT-28(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Jemes Paskal Dsilva, Mumbai

ITA 6462/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 28(1) Vs. Shri James Paskal Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor Dsilva 6Th Tower, Vashi Railway C-305, 1St Floor, Station Complex, Vashi, Vashi Plaza, Sector – Navi Mumbai – 400703. 17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400705. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adtpd7480P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. S.N. Kabra. Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri. Prayag Jha.Ar Date Of Hearing 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S.N. Kabra. Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri. Prayag Jha.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 68

called for. The id AO made addition of R$.8,05, 70,000/- while passing Assessment Order. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee aggrieved with the Assessment Order filed this appeal. 3 The following Grounds of Appeal have

Bp India Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT ) 8(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2215/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Samruddhi D Hande
Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(1)Section 5(2)Section 6

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the penalty order, dated 21.03.2012, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]. Assessment Year: 2005-06 2. Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before ... record (a) declaration and undertaking in Form 1 wherein disclosure was made about the present appeal pertaining to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, (b) certificate in Form 3 issued under Section 5(1) of the DTVSV Act [Acknowledgement No. 999143970040121] and (c) order

Shri Chirag Rajendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1927/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty 4 ITA.NO. 1926 & 1927/MUM/2021 Chirag R. Shah made by the Assessing Officer. Against

Shri Chirag Rajendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1926/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 1 of the Act. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty 4 ITA.NO. 1926 & 1927/MUM/2021 Chirag R. Shah made by the Assessing Officer. Against

ADIT(It)-3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1826/MUM/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2001-2002
For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Kanojiya (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee to hide or conceal income so as to avoid the imposition of tax thereon. In order that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) may be imposed, it has to be proved that the assessee has consciously made concealment or furnished inaccurate particulars.” 4.2 So from the above

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 249/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

payable by the assessee, which was a sine-quo-non for imposition of penalty. Amendments were made by the Finance Act, 2002, to Section 271(1)(iii) of the Act by incorporating the expression "if any" and also in Explanation 4 setting out the meaning of the 7 ITA Nos.248-249/Bang/2022 ... Singh and Co. is also not very important because that was in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 when Explanation 4 to Section 271 (1) ((c) was not in existence. The view of this Court in Horprasods case (supra) Leads to the irresistible conclusion that income also includes Losses

G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 248/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sumangala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

payable by the assessee, which was a sine-quo-non for imposition of penalty. Amendments were made by the Finance Act, 2002, to Section 271(1)(iii) of the Act by incorporating the expression "if any" and also in Explanation 4 setting out the meaning of the 7 ITA Nos.248-249/Bang/2022 ... Singh and Co. is also not very important because that was in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 when Explanation 4 to Section 271 (1) ((c) was not in existence. The view of this Court in Horprasods case (supra) Leads to the irresistible conclusion that income also includes Losses

DE vs. Hibhai P Dungrani, Mumbai

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

ITA 4714/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Shri Gagan Goyal () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Ms.R.M. Madhvi, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GAGAN

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 374/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

refund - INR 113,126 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings That the AO have erred in facts and law in initiating proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 5. Relief That the Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief and arising from the above grounds

M/S. Bangalore International Airport Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 191/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

refund - INR 113,126 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings That the AO have erred in facts and law in initiating proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act 5. Relief That the Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief and arising from the above grounds

M/S. Sangeeta Metal (India), Mumbai vs. ACIT -19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 141/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Kavitha Rajagopal () M/S Sangeeta Metal (India) Vs Acit-19(3), Mumbai Room No.206, 2Nd Floor, Matru 26/24, Ground Floor, 6B/1 Sindhi Lane, Mumbai-400 004 Mandir Building, Tardeo Road Pan : Aaffs6604P Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

purchases made as per information from sales-tax department and other ancillary ground being interest under sections 234B and 234C alongwith penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 3. There was delay in filing the appeal. The managing partner of the assessee had filed a duly sworn ... profit margin on such purchases of Rs.22,00,556/- at 12.5% and made addition of the same. Penalty proceedings were also initiated under section 271(1)(c). Aggrieved by this, the assessee was in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed

Chiron Behring Vaccines P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2705/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Harsh SangoiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(1)Section 5(2)Section 6

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the penalty order dated 30.03.2014, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Assessment Year: 2007-08 2. Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before us submitted that the quantum appeal for the Assessment ... record (a) declaration and undertaking in Form 1 wherein disclosure was made about the present appeal pertaining to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, (b) certificate in Form 3 issued under Section 5(1) of the DTVSV Act [Acknowledgement No. 233461100300121] and (c) order

M/S Lenovo (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 35/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 92C

warranty to book profits. (vii) Ground Nos.46 to 50 - Disallowance of advertisement and business promotion expenditure. (viii) Other ground regarding initiation of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. TP adjustment relating to manufacturing segment : 4. In the manufacturing segment, the tax payer applied internal CUP method as the Most

M/S. Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision India Private Limited ( Earlier Known As Abbott Medical Optics Private Limited), Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 11(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 84/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 84/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/. Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Abbott Medical Optics Pvt. Ltd.), The Income-Tax The Masterpiece, Officer, Level 5, Golf Course Road, Ward – 11(1), Sector – 54, Bangalore. Vs. Gurgaon – 122 002. Haryana. Pan: Aaeca8659C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajit Tolani, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 05.11.2011 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-4, Bangalore For A.Y. 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-4, Bangalore [‘Ld. Cit(A)'] & The Learned Income-Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Bangalore (`Ld. Ao') To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Are Bad In Law, Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Tolani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 3Section 92C

facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Ld.AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the Appellant has acted in a bona fide manner and provided all necessary details called

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Goldman Sachs India Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3695/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

sample invoices of third party in relation to the same. 4. In dismissing the Appellant's petition for non-levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the grounds of appeal referred above is separate, and may kindly be considered independent of each other

Goldman Sachs India Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3674/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

sample invoices of third party in relation to the same. 4. In dismissing the Appellant's petition for non-levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the grounds of appeal referred above is separate, and may kindly be considered independent of each other

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Venu Raman Kumar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit (It) – 3(3)(2) Vs. Shri Venu Raman 16Th Floor, Room No. Kumar, 1634, Air India Bldg, Flat No. 2, Hermes Nariman Point, House-Iii, Mumbai – 400020. Worli Sea Face, Mumbai – 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapk9122E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Achal Sharma. Cit. Dr Respondent By : Shri.Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri.Achal Sharma. CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Vijay Mehta.AR
Section 114Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 5(2)

section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Therefore, by operation of the explanation 1 to section 271 (1)(c), the onus squarely lies on the assessee and the findings given at the time of assessment are relevant and have much probative value ... explanation in the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee's case therefore squarely falls within the ambit of the provisions of section 271 (1)(c) r/w explanation 1 thereto attracting penal action for the above. 12. Reliance is also placed on the recent Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment

Blues Innovations India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1331/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalblues It Innovations Vs. Ito – 12(1)(3) India Pvt Ltd., Ab 145A, Aayakar B-101, Bhumi Enclave, Bhavan, Mahaveer Nagar, Mumbai -400020. Kandivali (W) Mumbai – 400067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4562D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied of Rs.4,01,919/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Blues IT Innovation India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai 2.The appellant craves leave to add further grounds ... levied. The disallowance of purchases on ad- hoc/estimated basis does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the provisions of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. The A.O. has not doubted the sales and made disallowance of bogus purchases and we rely on the ratio

Mr. Budnar Jayakar Shetty, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. PriyadrshiniBasaganni, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 57Section 69A

course of search & seizure operation, then the statute did not recognize those types of defenses under the explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It emphasized that in such cases:- (i) Voluntary disclosure does not release the appellant assessee from the mischief of penalty proceedings

Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft Private Limtied, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 835/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

234D of the Act. 13.1 Ground No. 10.5 - The learned AO has erred in law and on fact, in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act. These grounds are consequential in nature. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical