← 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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Race Course vs. Unimed Technologies Limited, Halol

ITA 632/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

dated 29.12.2018, determining the total income at Rs.22,74,37,450/- after making aggregate additions/disallowances of Rs.7,94,75,390/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated on various additions. In the course of assessment proceedings, a separate penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(b) was also ... initiated for alleged non-compliance with statutory notices. The Assessing Officer, vide penalty order dated 18.12.2018, levied a penalty of Rs.20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notice under section 142(1). The additions made by the Assessing Officer comprised the following: i. Software expenditure

Unimed Technologies Limited, Panchmahal vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 623/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

dated 29.12.2018, determining the total income at Rs.22,74,37,450/- after making aggregate additions/disallowances of Rs.7,94,75,390/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated on various additions. In the course of assessment proceedings, a separate penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(b) was also ... initiated for alleged non-compliance with statutory notices. The Assessing Officer, vide penalty order dated 18.12.2018, levied a penalty of Rs.20,000/- under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of notice under section 142(1). The additions made by the Assessing Officer comprised the following: i. Software expenditure

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Giriraj Enterprises, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 553/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 80I

irrelevant limb from the penalty notice. A perusal of the said decision suggests that the same was given in the context of section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the Hon. Bombay High Court observed that two limbs prescribed u/s 271(1)(c) carry different connotations and therefore ... However, a perusal of sec. 271AAB(1A) of the Act suggests that this section does not have two limbs as against the section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Section 271AAB(1A) simply provides for levy of penalty on undisclosed income of the specified previous year depending upon the situation

M/S Giriraj Enterprises, Pune vs. DCIT, CC.1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 80I

irrelevant limb from the penalty notice. A perusal of the said decision suggests that the same was given in the context of section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the Hon. Bombay High Court observed that two limbs prescribed u/s 271(1)(c) carry different connotations and therefore ... However, a perusal of sec. 271AAB(1A) of the Act suggests that this section does not have two limbs as against the section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Section 271AAB(1A) simply provides for levy of penalty on undisclosed income of the specified previous year depending upon the situation

C.R. Textile Mills, Salem vs. ITO, Circle-1, Salem

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

ITA 1361/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1361/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

assessment order, made an addition of Rs. 10,95,493/- on account of sundry creditors not confirmed, and accordingly initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). On appeal ... there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, and merely because an addition has been sustained, it does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival

Monalisa Pradhan, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 184/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR
Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

184/CTK/2025 is the quantum appeal and IA ITA No. 183/CTK/2025 is the appeal against the penalty levied and confirmed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 02. Shri Niranjan panda represented on behalf the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao B, represented on behalf ... purposes. ITA No. 183 & 184/CTK/2025 Monalisa Pradhan; A.Y. 2016-17 07. In respect of ITA No. 183/CTK/25 which is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 08. We are of the view that as the quantum

Monalisa Pradhan, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 183/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR
Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

184/CTK/2025 is the quantum appeal and IA ITA No. 183/CTK/2025 is the appeal against the penalty levied and confirmed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 02. Shri Niranjan panda represented on behalf the assessee and Shri Nishanth Rao B, represented on behalf ... purposes. ITA No. 183 & 184/CTK/2025 Monalisa Pradhan; A.Y. 2016-17 07. In respect of ITA No. 183/CTK/25 which is against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 08. We are of the view that as the quantum

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

noticed that the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee relating to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several 4 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE ... operative para of the order reads as follows - In view of the totality of the facts and keeping in view the provisions of section 271(1)(c) the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs 1

M/S Banna Lal Jat Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

Appeal is partly allowed by reducing the penalty to the

ITA 1569/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 250Section 271ASection 274

assessee, it can safely be said that the assessee was to explain and meet the allegation of violation of clause (c) of section 271(1) AAB of the Act. Therefore, even for said reason, there 10 M/s Banna Lal Jat Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bilwara. is no merit in the contention

Rooman Technologies Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)& TDS, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 536/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q 3]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

prescribed for submission of the said statement. To put it in other words, for failure to submit the statements, the penalty provided under Section 271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that

Rooman Technologies Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 535/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

prescribed for submission of the said statement. To put it in other words, for failure to submit the statements, the penalty provided under Section 271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that

Rooman Technologies Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 534/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q1]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

prescribed for submission of the said statement. To put it in other words, for failure to submit the statements, the penalty provided under Section 271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that

Rooman Technologies Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 533/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

prescribed for submission of the said statement. To put it in other words, for failure to submit the statements, the penalty provided under Section 271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that

Pramod Sangwan, Rohtak vs. DCIT, CC-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6119/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest". 190. Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further ... wherein it was held as under:- 21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com

Pramod Sangwan, Rohtak vs. DCIT, CC-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6118/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest". 190. Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further ... wherein it was held as under:- 21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com

Pramod Sangwan, Rohtak vs. DCIT CC-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6117/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest but also in the public interest". 190. Here, section 271(1)(c) is one such provision. With calamitous, albeit commercial, consequences, the provision is mandatory and brooks no trifling with or dilution. For a further ... wherein it was held as under:- 21. The Respondent had challenged the upholding of the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was accepted by the ITAT. It followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com

Md. Mahatab Alam, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 116/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Lalatendu Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

returned filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act. It was the submission that in view of explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as there is a difference between the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A

Md. Mahatab Alam, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 115/CTK/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Lalatendu Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

returned filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act. It was the submission that in view of explanation 5A to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as there is a difference between the return filed in response to notice issued u/s 153A

Sujata Mahendra Nawander, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 3, Jalna

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

ITA 1568/PUN/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1568/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sujata Mahendra Nawander, V The Income Tax Officer, 19, Manmohan Vidya Nagar, S Ward-3, Jalna. Mantha Road, Jalna-431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Aeppn7756M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Harshit S Kabra – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA

Evergreen Fincap Market Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 272/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 272/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Evergreen Fincap Market Private Limited,.…Appellant Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Aabce2789A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-5(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 22, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

side of assessee, treated the credit entry in the Bank account from M/s. Badrinath Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. as bogus and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. Total disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D limited to the maximum amount of expenditure claimed by the assessee