“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)

Magan Vadhaji Prajapati, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5212/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

addition of Rs. 5,83,848/- being 12.5@ of aggregate disputed purchase of Rs. 46,70,785/-. The assessing officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) at Magan Vadhaji Prajapati the rate of 100% tax shout to be evaded. The assessing officer levied penalty ... assessing officer. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that it is settle position under Income Tax proceeding that no penalty under section . 271(1)(c) is liable on addition made merely on estimation basis. Admittedly assessing officer made addition on estimation only thus, penalty order dated 26.07.2024 is not sustainable

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. World Series Hockey Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3894/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri SwapnilChoudhary- Sr. DR

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

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Honeywell Automation India Limited, Pune

ITA 2180/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Siddhesh Chougule[‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 10A(7)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

total turnover ignoring the fact stated by the AO that variation, whether small or big, is a variation and attracts penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld CIT(A) was right in allowing the appeal ... appellate proceedings, did not clearly communicate specific charge alleged for imposition of penalty as required or mandated by judicial precedents and provisions of section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 7 of 10 DCIT Vs Honeywell Automation India Ltd ITA Nos.2180/PUN/2024 & CO 06/PUN/2025

DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas, the

ITA 565/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ahd/2025 – Asst.Year 2014-15 2. आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.351/Ahd/2025 – Asst. Year 2014-15 1. The Dcit Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad – 380 015 बनाम / V/S. 2. Aia Engineering Ltd. 115, Gvmm Estate Odhav Road, Odhav Ahmedabad - 382 415 1. Aia Engineering Ltd. 115, Gvmm Estate Odhav Road, Odhav Ahmedabad – 382 415 2. The Dcit Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 2777 J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Preferred Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)'] Dated 13/01/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-2015. Both The Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Revenue'S Appeal In Ita No.565/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2014-15 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 2(17)Section 250

after giving effect to the relief granted by us in this order. 27. Ground No. 5 concerning the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), is premature and does not require any adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 28. Ground No. 6 is general

Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas, the

ITA 351/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ahd/2025 – Asst.Year 2014-15 2. आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.351/Ahd/2025 – Asst. Year 2014-15 1. The Dcit Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad – 380 015 बनाम / V/S. 2. Aia Engineering Ltd. 115, Gvmm Estate Odhav Road, Odhav Ahmedabad - 382 415 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 2777 J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Preferred Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)'] Dated 13/01/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-2015. Both The Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Revenue'S Appeal In Ita No.565/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2014-15 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 2(17)Section 250

Jainam Group Chhindwara, Chhindwara vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

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

ITA 83/JAB/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68

income of the assessee under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the said additions, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC

Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Dc/ACIT-2, Allahabad

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

ITA 138/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Madhav KapurFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 253(3)

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred both on the facts and in law of the case, in upholding, the penalty order passed under section 271(1\6) dated 01.02.2022 which is not in accordance to the law and deserves to be quashed. ITA No.137 & 138/ALLD/2025 Page ... confirming the impugned penalty imposed by the Ld. AO for Rs. 18,81,859/being not in accordance to the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) deserves to be deleted. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the impugned penalty imposed by the Ld. AO on account

Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited, C/O B. K. Kapur Co vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 137/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Madhav KapurFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 253(3)

Ashutosh Kumar Verma, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. ACIT, Sitapur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 115/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Ashutosh Kumar Verma V. The Acit Atkonwa, Lakhimpur Kheri Sitapur - New Uttar Pradesh Tan/Pan:Adqpv4727J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)

total income of the assessee at Rs.6,38,56,522/-. 2.4 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.5 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority and furnished additional evidences before

Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (Deceased) by Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 1106/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 69Section 69A

deposits and Rs.5,03,511 on account of FDRs and interest, thereby determining the total income at Rs.15,63,511. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b) were also initiated for failure to comply with notices, and penalty of Rs.10,000 was imposed. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal

Late Ashvinbhai Umedbhai Patel (Deceased) by Legal Heir Smit Ashvinbhai Patel, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 1105/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Section 271(1)Section 271CSection 69Section 69A

Chattanathan Devarajan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 34(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4976/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Chattanathan Devarajan Income Tax Officer - 34(1)(1) 1101, Raheja Tipco Heights Mumbai Rani Sati Marg, Vs. Malad East Mumbai – 400067 (Pan: Abjpc6332P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 192Section 194Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)

case of CIT vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals 335 ITR 259 (Del). In this decision, reference was made to explanations 4, 5 and 5A of section 271(1)(c), that no penalty can be imposed unless conditions stipulated in these provisions are duly and unambiguously met. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel ... assessee referred to clause (c) of explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c) to state that the amount of tax sought to be evaded is nil in the present case, since tax liability on the assessee, despite small addition of Rs.39,085/-, has ultimately resulted into a refund

Man Mohan Agarwal, Meerut vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghazaibad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1214/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Man Mohan Agarwal, Vs Dcit/Acit, 1/8, Shri Laxmi Lok, New Central Circle, Mohanpuri, Sarrafa Bazar, Ghaziabad. Meerut, U.P-250002. Pan-Acapa1883B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

there was sufficient material on record to show that cash sales were fabricated, Tribunal could not have deleted additions and penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on mere ground that sales tax authorities had accepted books of account and VAT was paid on such cash sales." Also

DCIT, Circle- 1(2), New Delhi vs. Adventure Resorts and Cruises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well Assessee’s cross objection both are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 5877/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhdcit, Circle 1(2), Vs.Adventure Resorts Room No. 368, C.R. Building & Cruises Pvt. Ltd. I.P. Estate, New Delhi 611, Surya Kiran Building, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan:Aaacf6111G) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.198/Del/2022 (Asstt. Year : 2014-15) Adventure Resorts Vs. Dcit, Circle 1(2) & Cruises Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 611, Surya Kiran Building, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aaacf6111G) (Appellant) (Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By :Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BRAJESH

Champa Lal Mehta, Sanchore vs. ITO Ward-2 Jalore, Jalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 599/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual) JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Champa Lal Mehta, Sanchore vs. ITO Ward-2, Jalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 598/JODH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual) JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Bhagya Kalita, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 257/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

question is whether the assessee has offered any explanation for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Explanation to section 271(1) raises a presumption of concealment, when a difference is noticed by the Assessing Officer, between reported and assessed income. ■ The burden is then ... make amicable settlement with the income tax department. ■ Statute does not recognize those types of defences under the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c). It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings under section 271(1

Bhagya Kalita, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 256/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

Chander Mohan Bhati, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

58. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, this appeal

ITA 732/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra,CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)

prescribed period of limitation. 9. Learned AR for the applicant has submitted that the assessee received penalty order dated 27.3.2025, passed under section 271(1)© relating to the assessment year under consideration and delivered the same to his Chartered Accountants, and it was thereupon that the CA found that

Rinkle Vora, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2)(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 68

assessment and added the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the total income. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings separately under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the assessment was completed by making the addition