← 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)

Ashok Sumanlal Vakharia - HUF, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 31.1.2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4313/MUM/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya &For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of penalty of Rs.5112402/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income ... arrived at by the learned Assessing Officer that the appellant has concealed his income and committed default within the meaning of provisions of section 271(1)(c) and liable for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (3). On the fact and circumstances of the case

M/S. International Specialty Products (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3255/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

account of transfer pricing adjustment, which according to the assessee is squarely covered by exception carved out in explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the business of trading, R & D and Corporate Support Services ... furnishing of inaccurate 5 International Specialty Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 particulars by the assessee as contemplated in explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c). 5.1. In this respect, the content of explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) is extracted below” Explanation 7.-Where in the case

ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anita Dinesh Dhokar, Mumbai

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT circular, the present appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2457/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

furnish accurate particulars of the income and relevant evidences by the assessee, even at the penalty proceedings, which attracts the provision of section 271(1)(c) and explanation thereto, as held in the case of E.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 99 (SC) ?" 4.Whether on the facts ... Court in the case of CIT Vs Atul Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 479/2014, which reinforces the Revenue Authority to impose penalties under section 271(1)(c), in the cases where the assessee fails to provide accurate and satisfactory explanations for discrepancies in their accounts even if the addition

Khodiyar Impexc/S, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of

ITA 2199/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

such disallowances were restricted to 3.00% of the disputed purchases/ alleged bogus purchase. In the meantime, the assessing officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded. The assessing officer levied on the penalty of Rs. 63,39,135/- vide order dated ... quantum assessment. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that it is settled position in the law that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable on the addition/disallowances made or sustained on estimation basis. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon the decision the following decision

Lata Prakash Maradia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 42(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1945/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Lata Prakash Maradia Ito Ward – 42(1)(2) Flat No. 105, 1St Floor, Building N.2A, Kautilya Bhavan, Rna N.G Sunity Phase I Chs Ltd, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Thakur Village, Kandivali (E), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400101. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Apppm 9292 J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Jigar Mehta
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

that the assessee was otherwise eligible for immunity submitted that the assessee was otherwise eligible for immunity from penalty under from penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subject to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, subject to compliance with the compliance with the Vivad se Vishwas ... deposit the tax determined determined under the scheme, the immunity , the immunity provided under the scheme provided under the scheme from penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be extended. Consequently, the (1)(c) could not be extended. Consequently, the (1)(c) could not be extended. Consequently, the learned

ACIT Circle 25(1), Delhi vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 17/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend

Tata Teleservices Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 337/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend

DCIT Circle 25(1), New Delhi vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 5927/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend

DCIT Circle 25(1), New Delhi vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 5926/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend

DCIT Circle - 25(1), New Delhi vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 5925/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend

DCIT Circle - 25(1), New Delhi vs. Tata Teleservices Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 5924/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend

Tata Teleservices Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 5668/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Tata Teleservices Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 25(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 5666/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend

Tata Teleservices Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 25(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 5665/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend

Tata Teleservices Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

ITA 4150/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

Section 37(1)

learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the ground of the Appellant against the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend

Gaurav Ajmera, Ratlam vs. DCIT(Central)-2, Indore

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 808/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 274

furnished inaccurate particulars of such Income." 6. Ld. AR then referred the provisions of two sections of Income-tax Act, 1961, viz. section 271(1)(c) and section 271AAB, to point out that there are different ingredients/defaults/charges prescribed in those two sections. He submitted that the ingredient/default/charge prescribed in section ... charge made out by AO in the show-cause notice issued to assessee, as re-produced above, contains the ingredients/default/charge copied from section 271(1)(c) whereas the notice has been issued u/s 271AAB. In nutshell, Ld. AR argued that the AO has specified a wrong charge in the notice

Hari Singh Chauhan, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer 3(5), Aayakar Bhawan

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Singh Chouhan V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 1, Naramau Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Askpc3749A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Srhi Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Srhi Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 55A

Term Capital Gain of the assessee Rs.48,85,660/- ITA No.344/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 7 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the Assessee

Smt. Manju Singh, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 163/LKW/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Manju Singh V. The Ito L-12, Gsvm Medical College Ward 3(2) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aebps3395D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.10.2021, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Engaged In Trading Of Shares, Securities & Mutual Funds. The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 11.09.2015, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,05,350/-. In The Computation Of Income, The Assessee Had Claimed Rs.55,99,694/- As Exempt Income Under Section 10(38) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On Sale Of Mutual Funds. However, As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income Of Rs.50,81,234/- On Sale Of Mutual Funds And, Accordingly, The Assessee Had Claimed Excess

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 68

STCG : Rs.3,94,724/- Total income : Rs.12,18,534/- Total income (rounded off) : Rs.12,18,540/- 2.1 The also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 3.0 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which partly allowed the appeal of the assessee

Shri Kingshuk Ghoshal, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-6(5), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 200/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kinghshuk Ghoshal V. The Ito 6(5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite Hal, Faizabad Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Affpg3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26.12.2017, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.11.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,05,233/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Was Earning Interest Income From Saving Bank Deposits & Fdrs & That The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.71,54,619/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 54Section 80E

Rs.22,221/- Net Taxable Income (rounded off) : Rs.18,95,410/- 2.2 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 3.0 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), challenging the addition of Rs.16,75,288/- made

Jagdishkumar Amrutlal Thakar, Patan vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward -3, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 984/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

thereafter. It was only when the assessee recently approached a Chartered Accountant in Ahmedabad for guidance on a separate appellate order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act that he became aware of the earlier appellate order passed under section ... under section 69 of the Act by the Assessing Officer and added to the total income of the assessee. Further, penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. were also initiated for concealment of income. 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee