“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)

Sukhabhai Dayalbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 1120/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54B

there was no merit in the assessee's claim and proceeded with the assessment based on the stamp duty valuation. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. In appeal, CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee. CIT(Appeals) reviewed

Sharad Kumar Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed

ITA 22/IND/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 273B

SMITH sheng sifepzor, = IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI

Urmila Rajendra Mundra, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ajmer

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)

found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate ... claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing

Dy.CIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur vs. Arun Majeed, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 388/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur .......... Appellant [Pan: Adopa9351R] Vs. Arun Majeed .......... Respondent Palak Velyannur Temple Road Veliyannur, Thrissur 680021 Appellant By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: ------- None ------- Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: ------- None -------

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(i)Section 274

proceeded with levy of penalty by holding that the case of the appellant would fall within the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(i)(c) by holding that the appellant is guilty of concealment of income. Accordingly, proceeded with levy of penalty ... Arun Majeed Ambadi Krisha Menon have no application, as the case of the appellant clearly falls within the ambit of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. She further submits that in the assessment order, the AO had clearly recorded that penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1

Sai Export Enterprises, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

ITA 339/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sai Export Enerprises .......... Appellant Mangad P.O., Kollam 691015 [Pan: Absfs2716A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tpo, Kollam .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 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 [Cit(A)] Dated 31.03.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Processing & Export Of Cashew Nuts. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 17.02.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 42,15,670/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 3

itself does not lead to the conclusion that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished incorrect particulars of income and provisions of section 271(1)(c) is not attracted. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ... acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not, in our 4 Sai Export Enerprises opinion, attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c). If we accept the contention of the revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer

Thekkinian Paulose Varkey, Thrissur vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 959/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Niveditha K. Kammath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

contentions and perused the material available on record. the issue in the present appeal relates to levy of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was levied by the AO in respect of addition made u/s. 68 disbelieving the existence of sundry creditors

Satya Kumar Darbari, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT Range-4, Lucknow

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

ITA 227/LKW/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Satya Kumar Darbari V. The Dcit 381, Rajendra Nagar Range 4 Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Agtpd4584H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Rs.1,35,29,290/-. 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE(1) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 3.0 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Arora, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(3), Mumbai

ITA 61/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Arora Ito Ward 27(3)(2) House No. 4E, Asalfa Bandra Kurla Near Ghatkopar W Vs. Complex, Bandra E Mumbai-400 084. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Amgpa0936K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Paranjpe

Section 271(1)(c)

pronouncement : 31/07/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above cited appeal, the Ld. AO levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act regarding cash deposited into the bank account which was not explained. From the penalty order, it is observed that ... addition of Rs. 28,40,000/- treating the same as unexplained cash credit. While completing the assessment the penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Then the Ld. AO issued a show-cause notice asking the appellant as to why penalty under section 271(1

Moraj Group Hospotalities Inc, Navi Mumbai vs. Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2047/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Pradip Kapasi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR

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

Assessing Officer had erred in initiating the penalty proceeding by issuing the impugned show cause notice dated 30.11.2017 under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c)- without striking off the irrelevant/inapplicable limb; thereby issuing a defective notice which is bad in the eyes of law as held ... assessee is specific, the same could not be maintained. Thus, on this sole technical defect in the notice issued u/s. 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty so imposed is ought to be deleted. 6. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on another decision

Ace Electromagnetics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD 9(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1865/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(e)

deserved to be modified.” Additional Grounds 1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the actions of Assessing Officer in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without striking off the irrelevant limb, i.e., whether the penalty levied is for concealment of particulars

Dow Chemical International, Mumbai vs. Addl /Joint/Dy. /Asstt Comm of Income Tax /ITO, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1940/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accou Ntant Member आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1940/Mum/2021 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dow Chemical V/S. The Dcit/Acit, Ward International Private बिाम 14(1)(2), Mumbai Limited The Godrej It Park, P2, 1St Additional/Joint/Deputy Floor, Block B, 02 Lbs /Assistant Commissioner Of Road, Godrej Business Income Tax/Income District Phirojshanagar, Tax Officer, National Vikhroli (W), Mumbai E-Assessment Centre, Delhi 400079 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacd4467B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Hitesh Thakkar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

section 115-0 of the Act at 20.56%. LEVY OF PENALTY 23. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute of amend

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7845/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah & Ms. Hinal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned DCIT erred in initiating penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.‖ 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a company engaged in the manufacturing, installation and sale (including trading ... Assessee is dismissed as being general in nature, while Ground No.12 raised by the Assessee, pertaining to initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is dismissed as premature in nature. 9. In result, in terms of Paragraph 5.3, 6.2, 7 and 8 above, the appeal

Manoj Kumar Katyal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-63(4), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5609/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: it against the order dated 10.02.2022 passed u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Ram Misra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

Section 269TSection 271Section 271E

issued another notice on 08.12.2021 to which the assessee responded on 09.12.2021. The impugned penalty order was passed on 10.02.2022. Now, as per section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the limitation for levy of penalty in cases of section 271E is end of the financial year in which

Microad India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle - 16(2), Delhi

Appeals is allowed

ITA 4715/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Khanna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

Section 195Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

assessee firm has not filed appeal with the Tribunal against the orders of the AO/CIT(A) in will not render the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act applicable to the case 7. Without prejudice to other grounds, and with due respect, the learned Assessing Officer be directed

Nisha Jain, Faridabad vs. ACIT DCIT Circle 1, Faridabad

The appeal is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2361/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandranisha Jain Vs. Acit/Dcit, Circle-1 House No. 672, Cgo Complex Nh-4 Sector 14 Haryana Haryana – 121007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acspj6903H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ujjawal Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

5956/Del/20218 for P a g e | 2 Nisha Jain (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) Assessment Year 2015-16 the proceeding initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act culminated in the order of penalty dated 23.06.2021 become infructuous and hence the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. 3. The appeal

Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 605/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalfresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. Income Tax Officer, B-310, Som Dutt Chamber, Ward-9(3), Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110066. Pan-Aabcd7720L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

Appellant's own cases for earlier assessment years. 7. That the AO erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd. vs. ITO 3. Since in grounds of appeal Nos. 1.1 and 2, assessee has raised legal

Lall Construction Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 34(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1680/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

course of appellate proceedings..” 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is against the upholding of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of the addition made on account of unexplained unsecured loans under Section 68 of the Income ... reinstitution of the respective appeal. ITA No.-1680/Del/2018 Lall Construc"on Co. 4. Since the very basis of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is under settlement as stated above, it is expedient to delete the penalty in question, subject to condition that in case the main

Shailesh Baldevbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(5) New Ward- 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 972/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal(Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shailesh Baldevbhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bunglow No.1, Ghanshyam Ward-2(2)(5), Nivas, New Ward 2(1)(2) Near Sanskrut Bunglow, Ahmedabad. Moteras, Ahmedabd-380005. [Pan :Afjpp0885 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.K Parikh, Ar Respondent By: Shri B.P Makwana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D.K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER