← 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)

Vikrant, Shamli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Shamli

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

ITA 5126/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 184Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)

ITA No. 5125-5129/DEL/2025 Vikrantl VS. ITO Ward-3(1)(4) Shamli IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI

Vikrant, Shamli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Shamli

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

ITA 5125/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 184Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)

ITA No. 5125-5129/DEL/2025 Vikrantl VS. ITO Ward-3(1)(4) Shamli IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI

Jamaluddin S/O Shri Chunir Ahmed, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 3551/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 2(22)(e)

assessee’s instant quantum appeal ITA No. 3550/Del/2025 stand rendered academic. Allowed accordingly. Same order to follow in the assessee’s section 271(1)(c) consequential penalty appeal ITA No.3551/Del/2025. 4. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA No. 3550 & 3551/Del/2025 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common

Jamaluddin, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 3550/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 2(22)(e)

assessee’s instant quantum appeal ITA No. 3550/Del/2025 stand rendered academic. Allowed accordingly. Same order to follow in the assessee’s section 271(1)(c) consequential penalty appeal ITA No.3551/Del/2025. 4. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA No. 3550 & 3551/Del/2025 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common

Anila Narendra Sanghani, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Jamanagar, Jamnagar

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

ITA 323/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) and a penalty order passed by the assessing officer under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14. ITA No. 322 & 323/Rjt/2025 Antila Narendra Sanghani 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel

Anila Narendra Sanghani, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Ward 1(3), Jamnagar

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

ITA 322/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) and a penalty order passed by the assessing officer under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14. ITA No. 322 & 323/Rjt/2025 Antila Narendra Sanghani 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 1 1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Sunali Biren Shah, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed the Cross

ITA 1726/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessee and assessed the total at ₹50,64,290/-. Interest under sections 234A and 234B was charged and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In the grounds ... Separate grounds were also raised challenging the levy of interest under sections 234A and 234B and the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee reiterated that all transactions were carried out through the NMCE platform in the normal course of business through

Gujarat Vaibhav Publications Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1359/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37

erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in initiating penalty proceedings Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. under 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds

Gujarat Vaibhav Publications Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1358/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37

erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in initiating penalty proceedings Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. under 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds

Varis Mahendrabhai Doshi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2195/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 determining total income at ₹4,59,37,000/- and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. Varis Mahendrabhai Doshi vs. ITO Asst.Year –2011-12 - 4– 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner

Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- 3(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 532/AHD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

under section 143(3) read with section 147 on 22.11.2016 determining total income at 21,11,98,170/- and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) raising several grounds

Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 829/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Ms. Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd., Additional / Joint/ Deputy / 10Th Floor, Dlf Two Horizon Assistant Deputy Centre, Dlf V, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gold Course Road, Income Tax Officer, Gurugram-122002, National E-Assessment Haryana, India. Centre, Delhi. Pan- Aadcc2076J Assessee Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92Section 92C

Indian company. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Each of the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds

Career Abroad Educational Consultants Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 84/CHANDI/2025[2012-13 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Dec 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

resulting in an assessed income of Rs. 61,73,801/-. The Assessing Officer also recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 for concealment of income, to be pursued separately. 4. Against the order of the AO the assessee went in appeal before

Shashikala Vinaykumar, Mangaluru vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1 (1) and Tps Mangalore, Mangaluru

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

ITA 8/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Vanaja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 10(14)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 271(1)Section 57

basis of this erroneous assumption and presumption the learned Authorities below have held the appellant is in default and penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) is initiated. It is submitted as there is no valid demand, and suppression of facts and hence the question of penalty does not arise

Shashikala Vinaykumar, Mangaluru vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1 (1) and Tps Mangalore, Mangaluru

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

ITA 7/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Vanaja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 10(14)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 271(1)Section 57

basis of this erroneous assumption and presumption the learned Authorities below have held the appellant is in default and penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) is initiated. It is submitted as there is no valid demand, and suppression of facts and hence the question of penalty does not arise

Foods and Inns Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4926/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

fact that no inaccurate particulars of income have been furnished by the assessee within the meaning of Explanation 1 to subsection (1) of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. b. without appreciating that the penalty order had not given any finding or reasons of coming ... assessee against the quantum addition. 3.2 Consequently, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice dated 30.11.2021 proposing levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed interest expenditure on borrowed funds utilised for acquisition of capital assets, which

Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 to 14, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2387/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2385, 2386 & 2387/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 Vs The Income Tax Officer, To 14 Co-Operative Housiong Ward-2(4), Pune. Society Ltd., Unit B Society Office, Rajiv Gandhi It Park, Phase I, Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aacab2693P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Ayesha Ansari & Shri Sandesh Ps – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 All Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S

Section 147Section 250Section 7(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

basis instead dismissed the appeal without considering substantial legal and factual questions raised. warranting intervention by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 7. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is unjustified and bad in law: 7.1 BECAUSE there was no malafide intention, concealment of income, or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 to 14, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2386/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2385, 2386 & 2387/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 Vs The Income Tax Officer, To 14 Co-Operative Housiong Ward-2(4), Pune. Society Ltd., Unit B Society Office, Rajiv Gandhi It Park, Phase I, Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aacab2693P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Ayesha Ansari & Shri Sandesh Ps – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 01/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Bunch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 All Dated 26.08.2024 Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S

Section 147Section 250Section 7(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

basis instead dismissed the appeal without considering substantial legal and factual questions raised. warranting intervention by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 7. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is unjustified and bad in law: 7.1 BECAUSE there was no malafide intention, concealment of income, or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

Blue Ridge Unit B Tower 9 to 14, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2385/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16
Section 147Section 250Section 7(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

basis instead dismissed the appeal without considering substantial legal and factual questions raised. warranting intervention by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 7. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is unjustified and bad in law: 7.1 BECAUSE there was no malafide intention, concealment of income, or furnishing of inaccurate particulars

Chandini Duvvuri, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1432/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

income from other sources, thereby determining the total income at Rs. 73,27,953/-. The A.O. also initiated separate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before