“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)

Pancharam Verma, Barabanki vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department/Income Tax Officer, Range-5(4), Barabanki

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 621/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 144Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

made addition of Rs.63,06,000/- under section 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Vide penalty order dated 31/08/2023 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, penalty amounting to Rs.19,48,554/- was levied

T.L. Sritharan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-14, Chennai

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

ITA 2634/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2634/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Asst. Commissioner Of New No.13, Old No.1, Vs. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non Corporate Circle-14, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 033. Pan: Aepps 6766J

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 50C

assessment order. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the A.O. has not specified under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty has been initiated whether for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. He also argued that the penalty has been levied

Shibu Roy, Rongpur, Cachar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Silchar

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

299/Gty/2025 The Ld. CIT(A) through order dated 07.08.2025, passed the impugned order in response to order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act passed by the Ld. AO. (d) ITA No. 300/GTY/2025 The Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order dated 07.08.2025 against the order under Section

Shibu Roy, Rongpur, Cachar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Silchar

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 299/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Shibu Roy, Rongpur, Cachar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Silchar

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 298/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Shibu Roy, Rongpur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Silchar

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 297/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) As Under:

Section 144Section 147Section 249(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, ITA Nos.538/CTK/2025 & ITA No

ITA 565/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.538 & 541/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ctk/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sylvesa Infotech Private Limited Vs Ito Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Plot No.S4/10 Niladri Vihar, Sailashree Vihar, Bhubaneswar Pan No.: Aahcs 0489 D (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, Ars : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Appeared In Ita Nos.538&541/Ctk/2025 & Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr Appeared In

For Respondent: Shri B.D.Ojha & Shri Abhishek Ojha, ARs

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) श्री जार्ज

Proton Positive Health Care India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle -16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 812/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.812/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Proton Positive Health Vs. Assistant Commissioner Care India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), Pan: Aafcp6862K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 07/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 28/06/2019 For Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

Appeals) (for short, “CIT(A)”) dated 07/03/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) dated 28/06/2019 for AY 2016-17. The assessee has assailed the impugned order passed ... case under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 18/12/2018, any further in appeal. 6. Thereafter, the AO vide his order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 28/06/2019, imposed upon the assessee company a penalty of Rs. 25,95,753/- for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

Prasanth Puttamareddy, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1555/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 271(1)(c)Section 69

National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 29.07.2025 passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, relating to the assessment year 2016-17. Since common issues are involved in these two appeals, they were heard together ... assessee is consequential to the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 1554/Hyd/2025 for A.Y. 2016-17. The A.O. levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the addition made towards investment for purchase of property under Section

Prasanth Puttamareddy, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1554/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 271(1)(c)Section 69

Roopa Jagadish, Mysuru vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 972/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran &

Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 55A

interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 11. The CIT(A) and Ld AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant

Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed is allowed

ITA 6454/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S.Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit – 4(2)(1) 6/7, Silk House, Silk Bazar, Jss Road, Room No. 422, Aayakar Bhavan, Girgaon, Mumbai-400 002 Vs. M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaack 1890 P (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Ritu Punjabi, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Dated 26.08.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Confirming The Penalty Imposed Of Rs.16,88,670/- U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. We Have Considered The Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 15.10.2016, Declaring Nil Income Under The Normal Provisions & Book Profit Of Rs.9,12,562/- U/S. 115Jb Of The Act. The Return So Filed By The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny. In Course Of Assessment Proceeding, The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) Noticed That An Amount Of Rs.56,28,900/-

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Punjabi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 271(1)(c)Section 3

fail to understand in such a scenario how the A.O. can record a satisfaction of concealment of income while invoking the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further, a reading of the order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act reveals that the A.O. has imposed ... both concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the A.O. himself was in doubt regarding the actual limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is applicable to assessee’s case. It is fairly well settled through various judicial precedents that there cannot

ACIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Lionbridge Technologies LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA

ITA 6191/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

impugned order arises from the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- 15(2)(1), Mumbai (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 31/03/2019. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section

Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1)(2), Present Jao - the Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1377/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

arising out of the exprate assessment orders passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) of the Act I.T.A Nos. 1374 to 1377/Ahd/2025 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No 2 Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt VS. ITO (hereinafter referred

Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1)(2), Present Jao - the Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1376/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1)(2), Present Jao - the Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1375/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Liz Hemangbhai Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(1)(2) Present Jao- the Dycit, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1374/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT 19.1 Mumbai, Lalbag Mumbai vs. Ambika Diamonds, Bkc Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5873/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: None

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

disallowance was confirmed @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases vide ITA No. 5355/M/2015 & 5689/M/3016 dated 18.08.2017. 3. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessing officer levied the penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. In appeal against the penalty levied under ... section 271(1)(c), the ld.CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the levy of penalty to the extent of addition confirmed in the appeal. Therefore, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 4. We have heard

Etesh P. Jain(Karta), Shree Darshan Pipes vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5847/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Etesh Prakash Jain (Karta), Shree Darshan Pipes vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5819/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR