“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)

Shring Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 7056/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Hon’Blea.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of said additions. Accordingly, a show cause notice u/s. 274 read with section 271(1)(c) dated 31.03.2014 was issued requiring the assessee to show cause as to why a penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) may not be imposed ... that AO imposed the penalty of Rs. 2,01,39,072/- vide order dated 15.1.2018 without specifying any charge as per provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is in not sustainable in the eyes of law. He thus stated that the entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated

Sarif, Jalesar Etah vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Etah

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 464/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

file of the learned CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, and as the present appeal pertains to the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is consequential to the said quantum addition, we consider it appropriate to remit this penalty matter also to the file

Sarif, Jalesar, Etah vs. Assessin Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Dinesh Nagar Etah

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 463/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Jeetendra Laxmanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1758/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblejeetendra Laxmanbhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 15/C, Sarda Shopping Centre, Ward-6(1)(1), Rabari Colony, Ahmedabad. Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad-380026. [Pan :Aocpp0793 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Dated 16.07.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

interest u/s. 234A/B/C/D of the Act. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds

Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Pune vs. ITO Ward, Hingoli

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

ITA 2113/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

For Appellant: Shri Nemin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Lid. CIT(A) bas ermed in maintaining the penalty of Rs. 71,75,281 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the Ld. Dinegitar of the fact that the specific limb under Section 271(1

Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Pune vs. ITO Ward, Hingoli

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

ITA 2112/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nemin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

Prasanna Shrikant Patankar, Satara vs. ITO WD No - 04, Satara

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

ITA 1692/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1692/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prasanna Shrikant Patankar, V The Income Tax Officer, No.35, Raviwar Peth, Azad S Ward-4, Satara. Chowk, Karad, Satara – 415110. Maharashtra. Pan: Alypp1014A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Dated 19.09.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Contrary To Law & Is Opposed To The Principles Of Natural Justice, Equity & Fair Play

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

ITAT to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the present appeal emanating from penalty order under section 271(1)(c) is also set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. We direct ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1126/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

addresses of donors. 18. We further observe that the penalty provisions invoked in case of addition made u/s.68 of the Act are under section 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1124/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. ITO Exemption, Kolhapur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1121/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

Classic Share & Stock Broking Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4962/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income-tax, Central Circle -7(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in levying penalty of Rs 12,45,940 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... ought not to have confirmed the levy of the impugned penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2016 issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271

Priyanka Lalitkumar Raizada, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4379/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalpriyanka Lalitkumar Raizada Vs Dcit Circle 42(3)(1), C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi, 16Th Mumbai Floor, D Wing, Trade World Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Building, Kamala Mills Compound, Kurla Complex, Bandra Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 East, Mumbai 400051 Pan: (Aekpr3350J) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Present) Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058479077(1) Dated 05.12.2023 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 26.12.2016 For Ay 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cti (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 21,50,540/-Being Sale Proceeds Of Inherited Jewellery As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

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 the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds OR to amend OR alter the existing grounds of appeal

Indira Bai Jindal, Khargone vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

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

ITA 134/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: None (Written request)For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

unexplained money and ₹1,05,000/- as unexplained expenditure, and the Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) raising multiple grounds. Grounds of Appeal ... dismissed Grounds of Appeal Nos. 8 and 9. 4.3 Grounds of Appeal Nos. 10 and 11 pertained to initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) held that these grounds were premature in nature as no penalty had yet been

Ashokbhai Anbabhai Kachadiya, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1373/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 6. The Learned CIT(A) has further erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) without proper notice or recording of satisfaction as mandated under the law. 7. The Appellant reserves the right to add, delete, amend

Rohini Maruti Deshmukh, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1839/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

Income-tax-III is as to whether the respondent-assessee is liable to pay the penalty amounting to Rs. 11,37,949 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act 10 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") ordered ... determined at Rs. 2,22,688. In this assessment the addition in respect of interest expenditure was made. Simultaneously penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated on account of concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The said expenditure was claimed