“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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Seabird Exploration Fz-Llc, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/DDN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

deleted the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act provides that the penalty would be deemed to attract where in respect of a fact material to the computation of income either no explanation ... Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (supra) has held that Section 271(1)(c) applies where the assessee "has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income". As regards the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, it was found

Jaggo, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 555/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Jaggo Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Sh. Indar H. No. 6, Azampur Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura Mathura, Mathura Pan : Ayopj8958J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 17.11.2025 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Assessee Is In This Appeal, Raising Following Grounds : “1. Because In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Information/Explanation Along With The Documents During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Above Notice Was Issued Through Registered E-Mail Id & Fixed For Compliance On 26.02.2021, After Laps Of Considerable Time, The Assessing Officer Issued The Another Notice U/S 274 To The Assessee R.W.S 271(1)B) Of The Act Why Penalty U/S 271 Of The Act Should Not Be Initiated & Levied. In Compliance, The Assessee Not Submitted Any Reply. Accordingly, Assessing Officer Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

case, learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in not deleting the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee calling

Kota Radha, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 563/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O”) under section 147 r.w.s 144 of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 28.03.2024 and under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 22.07.2024 for the A.Y. 2015-16. As the present appeals are inextricably interwoven and in fact interlinked, therefore ... determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 94,14,786/-. Also, the AO, while culminating the assessment, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the income particulars. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). As the appeal

Kota Radha, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 562/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1301/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1300/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 973/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Ravi Rishi Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 972/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

M/S. R R Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 2743/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2741 To 2743/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Rr Industries Ltd., No.94/95, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaacr 3594 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : 11.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Hereinafter In Short 'The Ld.Cit(A)'), Chennai-18, Dated 07.08.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short 'Ay') 2008-09 To 2010-11 Confirming The Penalty- Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'). :: 2 ::

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice issued by the AO [u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act] had reflected both the two (2) limbs of Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act. Further, according to the Ld.DR, since the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangotri Textiles ... perusal of the SCN dated 31.03.2015 [for all the captioned AYs], we note that both the faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are given therein i.e. “have concealed the particulars of his income” or “furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. In other words

M/S. R R Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 2742/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2741 To 2743/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Rr Industries Ltd., No.94/95, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaacr 3594 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : 11.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)'), Chennai-18, Dated 07.08.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2008-09 To 2010-11 Confirming The Penalty- Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'). :: 2 ::

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

M/S. R R Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2741/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice issued by the AO [u/s.274 r.w.s.271(1)(c) of the Act] had reflected both the two (2) limbs of Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act. Further, according to the Ld.DR, since the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangotri Textiles ... perusal of the SCN dated 31.03.2015 [for all the captioned AYs], we note that both the faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are given therein i.e. “have concealed the particulars of his income” or “furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. In other words

Income Tax Officer-41.2.2, Mumbai vs. In Coach Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7993/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailincome Tax Officer, Ward – 41(2)(2) Room No.834, 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 ............... Appellant Pan: Aaafi5110R V/S In Coach Builders, Plot No.1A, L.B.S Marg, Vikhroli (W), ……………… Respondent Mumbai- 400083

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2009-10. 2 2. The only grievance of the Revenue, in the present appeal, is against ... deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that for the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 23.09.2009, declaring

Sangeeta Golchha, Raipur vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.788/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sangeeta Golchha 9/532, Behind Mahavir Bhawan, Budhapara, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adcpg6259Q

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)

Sangeeta Golchha Vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) automatic as a result of any outcome from the assessment. That so far as Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, penalty cannot be levied either for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2616/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

assessee relate to A.Y. 2015-16; ITA No. 2612/Ahd/2025 relates to quantum additions, ITA No. 2613/Ahd/2025 relates to appeal against penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, ITA No. 2614/Ahd/2025 relates to quantum addition for A.Y. 2018-19, ITA No. 2615/Ahd/2025 relates to appeal against penalty imposed ... assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 2612/Ahd/2025 (quantum additions) and ITA No. 2613/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2015-16 (appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2615/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2614/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2613/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2612/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Spice of Life Hotels and Estates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7704/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Estates Pvt. Ltd. challenging the quantum additions made vide order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 28.03.2022 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 23.03.2024. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both the aforesaid appeals ... Appellant therefore prays that the aforesaid addition be deleted.” I.T.A. No. 7704/Mum/2025 (Penalty Appeal) 1. GROUND NO. 1: LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW: 1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Spice of Life Hotels and Estates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7703/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beeba Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Assessee by

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)