← 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)

Albert Joseph Rozario, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int. Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1168/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

Taxman 386 (SC). The issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the amendments to Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) made applicable from 01-04-2003 by Finance Act had retrospective applicability or not. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the said amendments are clarificatory

Devika Buildestate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

sole ground for disallowance when primary evidence has been provided. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated mechanically without recording proper satisfaction. Mere disallowance of an expense does not attract penalty unless the claim was false or made with ... services provided which has not been produced. 5.3 Ground 3: With respect to this ground where appellant claims that Issuance of notices under Section 271(1)(c) was mechanical and unjustified. This ground of appeal is consequential in nature and thus no separate adjudication is required. 6. Decision Ground

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 473/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

income of the assessee. I have reason to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also initiated. i) Further the assessee claimed other income of Rs.17,01,064/- on which assessee also claimed ... other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, are also initiated. The assessee during the appellate proceedings had reiterated the earlier stand; however

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 472/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

income of the assessee. I have reason to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also initiated. i) Further the assessee claimed other income of Rs. 17,01,064/- on which assessee also ... other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, are also initiated. 9.2 The assessee during the appellate proceedings had reiterated the earlier stand; however

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 471/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

income of the assessee. I have reason to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also initiated. i) Further the assessee claimed other income of Rs. 17,01,064/- on which assessee also ... other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, are also initiated. 9.2 The assessee during the appellate proceedings had reiterated the earlier stand; however

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 470/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

income of the assessee. I have reason to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also initiated. i) Further the assessee claimed other income of Rs.17,01,064/- on which assessee also claimed ... other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, are also initiated. The assessee during the appellate proceedings had reiterated the earlier stand; however

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 469/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15
For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

income of the assessee. I have reason to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also initiated. i) Further the assessee claimed other income of Rs.17,01,064/- on which assessee also claimed ... other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, are also initiated. The assessee during the appellate proceedings had reiterated the earlier stand; however

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 468/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

income of the assessee. I have reason to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also initiated. i) Further the assessee claimed other income of Rs. 17,01,064/- on which assessee also ... other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, are also initiated. 9.2 The assessee during the appellate proceedings had reiterated the earlier stand; however

Daxen Agritech India Pvt. Ltd., Baddi vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

In the result, all the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 467/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Aman Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80

income of the assessee. I have reason to believe that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are also initiated. i) Further the assessee claimed other income of Rs.17,01,064/- on which assessee also claimed ... other income. I have reason to believe that the assessee is has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, are also initiated. The assessee during the appellate proceedings had reiterated the earlier stand; however

Xcelris Labs Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 32/AHD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jul 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad, (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)"), dated 06.12.2021 confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11. ITA No. 32/Ahd/2022 [Xcelris Labs Limited

DCIT, Circle-1, Durgapur vs. Debeanjana Hard Coke Private Limited, Hetedoba

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 564/KOL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jul 2025

Bench: the appellate proceedings or in the course of appellate proceedings.”

Section 10Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in lawas it did not specify which limb of Section 271

Daido India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Gurgaon

ITA 5761/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the addition sustained is merely difference of opinion and does not reflect any omission or misrepresentation of facts. The Appellant prays ... that the Ld AO be directed to drop the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter or add fresh grounds of appeal during the course of proceeding. Additional Ground of Appeal: That in the facts and circumstances

M/S Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. JCIT(C.C), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/ALLD/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad18 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 271(1)(c)

computation of quantum additions that survive, which will be followed by computation of tax sought to be evaded, within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. These are common directions in all the relevant assessment years i.e. assessment year 2004-05 to 2009-10 corresponding

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. JCIT(C.C), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 95/ALLD/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad18 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 271(1)(c)

computation of quantum additions that survive, which will be followed by computation of tax sought to be evaded, within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. These are common directions in all the relevant assessment years i.e. assessment year 2004-05 to 2009-10 corresponding

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. JCIT(C.C), Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 94/ALLD/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad18 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 271(1)(c)

computation of quantum additions that survive, which will be followed by computation of tax sought to be evaded, within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. These are common directions in all the relevant assessment years i.e. assessment year 2004-05 to 2009-10 corresponding

M/S Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. ACIT Range, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 116/ALLD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 271(1)(c)

computation of quantum additions that survive, which will be followed by computation of tax sought to be evaded, within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. These are common directions in all the relevant assessment years i.e. assessment year 2004-05 to 2009-10 corresponding

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Cir., Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 16/ALLD/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad18 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 271(1)(c)

computation of quantum additions that survive, which will be followed by computation of tax sought to be evaded, within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. These are common directions in all the relevant assessment years i.e. assessment year 2004-05 to 2009-10 corresponding

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Shson, Allahabad vs. ITO, Allahabad

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 14/ALLD/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad18 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 271(1)(c)

computation of quantum additions that survive, which will be followed by computation of tax sought to be evaded, within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. These are common directions in all the relevant assessment years i.e. assessment year 2004-05 to 2009-10 corresponding

Ashoka Tubewell Boring Engineering & Construction, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-2, Patna

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

ITA 90/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajhariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

variation in the income shown in the return filed under Section 153A and the assessment made, no penalty is leviable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel vs. ACIT [(2017) 80 taxmann.com 162 (Gujarat}], it was held, as follows ... Assessing Officer has made assessment on the said return and, therefore, the return is to be considered for the purpose of penalty under section 271{1){c} and the penalty is to be levied on the income assessed over and above the income returned under section 153A

Aravinda Bhupathiraju Rep by Gpa Holder Sri Kar Bahadur Sri Raja, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (Internal Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. (It). No.262/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Aravinda Bhupathiraju Vs. Asst. Cit (International Taxation) Rep. By. Gpa Holder Income Tax Office, Infinity Towers, K.A.R. Bahadur Sri Raja Sankaramatam Road Falt No. 502, Sky Aditya Apartment Visakhapatnam- 530016 Gitams Road, Yendada Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530045 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Bjopb0898P] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt A. Aruna, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Appeal No. CIT(A), HYD-10/10358/2014-15 dated I.T.A. (IT). No.262/VIZ/2025 Aravinda Bhupathiraju 28.02.2025 arising out of the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated 13.03.2023. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee being an individual ... passed a consequential order dated 04.04.2025 determining the Long-Term Capital Loss at Rs.20,00,615/-. However, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld. AO issued show-cause notice calling for objections for levying of penalty. Since assessee was not responsive