← 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)

Attu Purattu Ismail, Thalassery vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kannur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 812/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Attupurattu Ismail .......... Appellant Attupuratt House, Thalassesry, Kannur 670676 [Pan: Abfbi7471M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kannur ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Ananthakrishnan R. Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 01.09.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Was Filed On 22.03.2014 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 2,63,300/-. The Search & Seizure Operations U/S. 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Conducted In The Business Premises Of Parco Group Of Concerns

For Appellant: Shri Ananthakrishnan R. CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

case of assessment made u/s. 148 of the Act. In our opinion provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) were squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, which reads as under: - “Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc. 271. (1

Sampath Reddy Vem, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1230/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1229 & 1230/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sampath Reddy Vem Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Adfpv3598L Warangal (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Theses Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sampath Reddy Vem (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23.05.2025 & 24.05.2025 Respectively For The A.Y 2014-15. As Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee Therefore, For The Purpose Of Convenience & Brevity, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

circumstances beyond the appellant's control. 3. The Learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 7,60,660 under section 271(1)(c), despite fact that the addition of Rs. 30,28,350 being purely on estimated profit @5% of stock put to sale and also ... NFAC erred in not appreciating that where income is assessed on estimated basis, especially after rejection of books of account, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable, as held by various judicial pronouncements, including that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. Page

Sampath Reddy Vem, Warangal vs. ITO., Ward - 1, Warangal

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1229/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1229 & 1230/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sampath Reddy Vem Vs. Income Tax Officer Warangal Ward-1 Pan:Adfpv3598L Warangal (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: Theses Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sampath Reddy Vem (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23.05.2025 & 24.05.2025 Respectively For The A.Y 2014-15. As Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee Therefore, For The Purpose Of Convenience & Brevity, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri R. Kumaran, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

circumstances beyond the appellant's control. 3. The Learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 7,60,660 under section 271(1)(c), despite fact that the addition of Rs. 30,28,350 being purely on estimated profit @5% of stock put to sale and also ... NFAC erred in not appreciating that where income is assessed on estimated basis, especially after rejection of books of account, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable, as held by various judicial pronouncements, including that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. Page

Sujatha Hariharan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2491/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2490 & 2491/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sujatha Hariharan, Old No.20, New No.8, Poes Road, 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), Chennai. Pan: Bgcps 5734A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Both Dated 24.07.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16.

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Sujatha Hariharan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2490/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2490 & 2491/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sujatha Hariharan, Old No.20, New No.8, Poes Road, 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018. Pan: Bgcps 5734A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Both Dated 24.07.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16.

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष