“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)

Cox & Kings Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1716/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd., Income Tax Officer- Turner Morrison Building, 1(1)(1), 534/579, 5Th Floor, 16 Bank Street, Vs. Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhawan, Pan: Aaacc1921B M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd., 1(1)(1), Turner Morrison Building, 534/579, 5Th Floor, Vs. 16 Bank Street, Aayakar Bhawan, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 M.K. Road, Pan: Aaacc1921B Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, D.R

Section 92B

234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, which is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271G of the Act 30. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271G

M/S Lenovo India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2833/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA

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

Other grounds 7.1 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO have erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without concluding that the Appellant has concealed any particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Rrb Energy Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the RevenueDepartment stands dismissed

ITA 7323/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Addl. Cit, Vs. Rrb Energy Ltd, Special Range-7, Ga, 1/B-1, Extension, New Delhi Mohan Coop. Ind Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacv0109N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriVipulKashyap, Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri. S. Krishanan, Ld. Adv

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35Section 40

This ground of appeal is partly ruled in favour of the appellant. ” 2.6 Subsequently, notice dated 07.03.2018 was issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO qua disallowance of Rs. 4,02,32000/-. In response to said notice the Assessee by filling

Sri. Joison Kundu Kulam Johny, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(3)(6), Bangalore

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

ITA 308/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2015-16 Shri. Joison Kundu Kulamjohny, Vs. Ito, No.11, Ephrathah Villa, 2Nd Cross, Ward – 5(3)(6), Sathya Colony, B Narayanapura Bengaluru. Dooravani Nagar, Bengaluru–560 016. Pan : Aetpj 6642 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

challenged the order of the CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO imposing penalty on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee is a salaried employee with M/s SAP Labs India

ITO, Ward-3(3), Thane vs. Shri Shaitesh Dattatray Thakare, Thane

Appeal is partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 290/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Ward 3(3), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, Company), K-14, New Vaity Wadi, R.No.8, Ashar It Park, Vs. Vishnu Nagar, Road No.16Z, Naupada, Wagle Estate Midc, Thane (West), Thane (W) - 400604 Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Ward 3(3), (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Room No.8, Company), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, K-14, New Vaity Wadi, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Vishnu Nagar, Thane (W) - 400604 Naupada, Thane (West), Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Present For:

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R

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

read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (for short ‘the Act) and impugned order dated 20.02.2020 qua penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the grounds inter alia that; “1. In the facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... addition of Rs.38,61,698/- on account of bogus purchases made by the assessee having been taken from hawala entry providers, proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune

Shailesh D. Thakre (Prop of Shivam Trading, Mumbai vs. ITO WD3(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1733/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R

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

Shailesh D. Thakare, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1732/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R

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

Sterling Investment Corporation P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT-Appeals-8, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1667/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharshiआअसं. 1667/मुं/2020(िन.व.2015-16) Sterling Investment Corporation : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pvt Ltd, 41/44, S P Centre, Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai Pan: Aaaccs5467L बनाम/ Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Appeals-(8) : ""थ"/ Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 135Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

referred to, as ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 13/02/2020 for the assessment year 2015-16, upholding 2 A.Y. 20151-16 levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. This appeal is time barred by 86 days. The assessee has filed ... filing of appeal. 3. Shri Rajan Vora, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessing officer has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of assessee’s inadvertent claim of expenditure under ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ (in short, ‘CSR’). The Ld.AR submitted that assessment

S N Balasubramaniya, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 60/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sri.Sandeep C, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 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 phrase "amount ... 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

Karle Infrastructure Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 40/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ITO -22 (2) (1), Mumbai vs. Mageshraja Ramraja Nadar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1673/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1673/मुं/2021(िन.व.2010-11) Ito-22(2)(1), Mumbai : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant 312, Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug Parel, Mumbai बनाम/ Vs. Mageshraja Ramaraja Nadar P/5, Gandhi Nagar 90 Feet Road, Dharavi Mumbai-400 01 : ""थ"/ Respondent Pan : Adjpn8379H Appellant By : Ms. Neha Thakur (Dr) Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 16/03/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 16/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Department Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 28/02/2020 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Deleting Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Thakur (DR)For Respondent: None

Section 271(1)(c)

Appeals)-33, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 28/02/2020 for the assessment year 2010-11 deleting penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2 2. As per the defect memo issued by the Registry, appeal ... filing of the present appeal. 4. Ms. Neha Thakur, representing the department submitted that the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases. The ld.DR pointed that

M/S Vrl Logistics Ltd, Hubli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2780/BANG/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

books of accounts is met out of undisclosed sources and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, are initiated accordingly for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” ITA No.2780 /Bang/2017 Page 9 of 12 9. In this regard

Shri Bharat Mahesh Malhotra, Mumabi vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Thane

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 1483/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 133A(1)(b)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in levying penalty of Rs. 97,923/-under section 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is against the provisions of law, facts circumstances of the case and deserves to be quashed. 2. That ... erred in law in confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied by the Assessing Officer which is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law as show cause notice issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer is general in nature with mentioning specific charge of imposition of penalty. 3. That

Channa Keshava, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 601/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sri.S.N.Shyanbhog, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Snt Controls Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-18, Mumbai

In the result, these assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 271/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 271 To 273/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Snt Controls Ltd. Cit(A)-18 Vs. B-9, Nandjyot Indl Mumbai-400 021 Estate, Safed Pool Andheri Kurla Road Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 072 Pan : Aadcs8781N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

These are assessee’s appeals directed against respective orders of learned CIT(A) for respective assessment years, wherein following penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been sustained:- A.Y. Amount (Rs.) of Penalty 2009-10 Rs. 83,253/- 2010-11 Rs. 8,114/- 2011-12 Rs.1 ... doubt the sales. The ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12% and gave further relief of 4% VAT paid. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also levied. Ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty. 5. Against the above order assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard

Triumph International Finance India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD), CC-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 195/MUM/2021[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.195 To 197/Mum/2021 (A.Ys.1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2002-03)

For Appellant: Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the levy of the impugned penalty under section 271(1)(c). The appellants further, contend that there is total non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer inasmuch as he has initiated and levied ... contend that there is total non- application of mind by the Assessing Officer inasmuch as he has referred to Explanation 1(B) to section 271(1) for the purpose of levying the impugned penalty for concealment of particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income though Explanation 1

Memon Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5990/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5990/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Memon Co-Op Bank Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-1(3)(2) C/O Memon Co-Op Bank Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Ltd, Patel & Sony Arcade, Mumbai-400020. 234 Bellasis Road, Nagpada, Mumbai-400008. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat0066G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Pankaj Toprani Revenue By: Ajay Chandra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-03, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “A. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.70,61,337/- U/S 271(1)(C). B. The Learned C.1.T. (A) Failed To Appreciate That:

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj TopraniFor Respondent: Ajay Chandra (DR)

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

which they have already given up. The ld. CIT(A) concluded that assessee has not concealed the income for invoking the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have given the careful consideration to the finding of ld. CIT(A) and find that there was a sufficient

Virgo Valves & Controls Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 5617/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 92C

this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 26th May 2016 in the matter of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09. ITA No. 361/Mum/2015 ITA Nos. 5617 & 5337/Mum/2016 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2010-11 Page

Virgo Valves & Controls Ltd. (Now Virgo Valves & Controls Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 5337/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Virgo Valves & Controls Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 361/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 92C