“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)

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Skyway Infra Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly the grounds of the revenue for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 in this regard are dismissed

ITA 2676/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Skyway Infra Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly the grounds of the revenue for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 in this regard are dismissed

ITA 2671/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Skyway Infra Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly the grounds of the revenue for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 in this regard are dismissed

ITA 2670/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A

The Dy.Comm. of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Skyway Infra Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly the grounds of the revenue for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 in this regard are dismissed

ITA 2669/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A

Assps6238G, Noida vs. AO, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3270/DEL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nring Chamwibo Zellang, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)

Section 234A, 234B and 234C. Ground 7: The Ld. AO has erred in law, facts and circumstances 7 in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c). The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive of and without prejudice to each another. The appellant craves leave

The Jindva Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 515/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Jindva Seva Sahakari The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mandli Limited, Ward-1, At & Post-Jindva, Gandhinagar. Ta. Dehgam, District, Gandhinagar-382315. [Pan :Aabat5907 F] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 210Section 234ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

which facts are wrong and therefore it require to be deleted. 05. That the appellant has not made any fault as mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as such the penalty proceedings initiated may please be quashed. 06. That the appellant has neither

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Nevales Networks Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4827/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-14(1)(1), M/S. Nevales Networks Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, The Capital, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Level 7, Plot-C70, M.K.Road, G Block, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadcn1748A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

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

substantial overstatement of loss and also submitted that this constitutes furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of 5 section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was accordingly submitted that the penalty so levied be sustained and the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC ... returned a finding that the notice so issued to the assessee doesn‟t specify as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings have been initiated, whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and thereafter

T.C. Healthcare Pvt Ltd, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-25(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3957/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member [Assessment Years:2016-17]

Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax (Appeals)[in short the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 13.05.2025 passed in Case No. NFAC/2015-16/10125861 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee ... sole substantive ground challenging both the lower authority’s action imposing section 271(1)(c) penalty(ies) amounting to Rs.4,86,860/- and 20,080/- relating to as many quantum disallowance is under the head gifts/presentation expenses and penalty paid on excise duty, respectively, it transpires at the outset during

New Mangalore Port Road Company Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1053/Del/2025, A.Y. 2015-16 New Mangalore Port Road Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, Income Tax, Circle-16(1), D-21, Corporate Park, Vs. C. R. Building, I P Estate, Sector-21, Dwarka, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn9106E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’]. 2. The sole issue raised before us challenges the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) 3. The assessee has admitted that the impugned order dated 15.09.2022 was received on 26.12.2024. However ... Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd., 328 ITR 53 and Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 levied the penalty of Rs.19,25,64,233/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the above mentioned disallowances of depreciation of Rs.60,67,90,274/- and interest of Rs.1,63,94,947/- observing

Shri Puran Chan & Co., Dehradun vs. DCIT, CC-Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 111/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

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

3.The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee arguing on Ground No. 1, submitted that the A.O. has not specified the limb of provision of Section 271(1)(C) of the Act in the penalty notice dated 28/12/2018, therefore, the initiation of penalty is erroneous. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative ... quantum Appeal,the Ld. CIT(A) in quantum appeal granted substantial relief to the Assessee, thereafter penalty notice u/s 274 r.w. Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued on 02/12/2024, wherein specific limb of 'concealed the particulars of income' has been mentioned and the impugned order of penalty

Abdul Jabbar Jaheer Husain, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-8(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2245/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2245/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Abdul Jabbar Jaheer The Income Tax Officer, Husain, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(2), No.17/73, Pillayar Koil Street, Chennai. Ayapakkam, Chennai – 600 077. Pan: Adopj 8688E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanaban, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54BSection 54F

1)(c) of the Act, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA by placing reliance on Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act held that in the instant case, the assessee’s explanation is not bonafide. It was concluded by the FAA that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Seven Seas Hospitality Private Limited, New Delhi

ITA 2226/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 27I

penalty proceeding under section 27IE of the Act through in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act. Thus, in so far as penalty under section 27IE is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Seven Seas Hospitality Private Limited, New Delhi

ITA 2225/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 27I

Salim Mohammed Kabeer, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Trivandrum

In the result, both appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 654/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and thereby upheld the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us.4. During the appeal before us the Ld.AR submitted the paper book containing pages of 1- 89 which is kept in record. The Ld.AR stated that the assessee was not allowed to submit the evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) though reasonable opportunity was denied.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Leena Lal, (SR.AR.)

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

relating to the aforesaid assessment years.The Ld. AO, after completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and eventually levied a penalty of Rs.17,06,091/–. Aggrieved by the said penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal

Salim Mohammed Kabeer, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Trivandrum

In the result, both appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 653/COCH/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and thereby upheld the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us.4. During the appeal before us the Ld.AR submitted the paper book containing pages of 1- 89, which is kept in record. The Ld.AR stated that the assessee was not allowed to submit the evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) though reasonable opportunity was denied.

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Leena Lal, (SR.AR.)

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

Rohit Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 760/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gauta, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 69C

completed on 27.08.2018 determining total income at Rs.9,61,170/-, making additions under sections 69C of the Act and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 8. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed ... merit, contrary to law, and deserves to be quashed. GROUND OF APPEAL No. 5: Ground No. 5: Invalid Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) The appellant respectfully submits that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is legally

Rohit Jain, Tonk vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward, Tonk

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gauta, CIT-DR

Section 153CSection 69C

determining total income at Rs. 9,61,170/-, making additions under sections 69C of the Act and initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 8. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) Jaipur-4, who dismissed the appeal ... merit, contrary to law, and deserves to be quashed. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 5: Ground No. 5: Invalid Initiation of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) The appellant respectfully submits that the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is legally