“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)

Kosanam Rama Rao, Guntur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Guntur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 226/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

regarding penalty proceeding under Section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could ... regarding penalty proceeding under Section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could

Lalji Yadav, Lucknow vs. ITO-1(2), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 729/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Lalji Yadav, Vs. Ito-1(2), 3/152A, Vivek Khand, Gomti Lucknow (New) Nagar, Lucknow, U.P.-226010 Pan:Aakpy2220J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Confirming The Penalty Levied Under Section 272A(1)(D) Levied By The Ito, Ward-9(1)(1), Lucknow Dated 27.01.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Giving Rise To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Act, Has Been Set Aside By The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'A' Vide Order Dated 13.11.2024 Passed In Ita No. 448/Lkw/2024, Restoring The Matter To The Assessing Officer For Passing The Assessment Order Afresh, The Impugned Order Dated 09.10.2024 Passed By Ld. "Cit(A)" As Well As Penalty Order U/S 272A(1)(D) Do Not Survive & Consequently The Order Passed By The Lower Authorities Deserve To Be Set Aside. 2. Because The Order Appealed Against Is Contrary To Facts, Law & Principles Of Natural Justice. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Court had held that where the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence for non-production of documents, the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b) was justified. He held that the case of the 4 Lalji Yadav A.Y. 2017-18 assessee was squarely covered by the judgment

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 325/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

short “A.O.”) under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 20.03.2022 and 23.03.2022 AND under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 23.09.2022 for A.Y 2013-14 and A.Y 2014-15, respectively. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 324/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 323/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 322/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Muthusamy Sakthivel, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1487/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1486/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1487/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क

Muthusamy Sakthivel, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1486/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)Section 69A

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1293/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1292/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1291/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

Ss74 Salem Steel Plant Employee Co-Op Stores Ltd., Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1290/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Senthil Kumar & S.BhupendranFor Respondent: Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(2)Section 271(1)Section 271BSection 68

Rsrg Devbuild P. Ltd, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 4(1), Indore

ITA 6/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 273BSection 274Section 277

demise of counsel, no reply could be filed to the AO in response to the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. section 271(1)(b) for Page 2 of 4 RSRG Devbuild Private Limited ITA No.6/1nd/2025 Assessment year 2014-15 imposition of penalty. Ld. AR prayed to delete the penalty having

Seema Jain, Indore vs. ITO 1(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 591/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50Section 50C

that the actual amount received was offered for taxation. It is only on the basis of the deemed consideration that the proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the act has been started. The revenue has failed to produce any iota of evidence that the assessee actually received one paise ... property determined by the DVO did not by itself amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the act The revenue has also not shown as to how the assessee could be held to have actually received this amount which

Parveen Tayal, Faridabad Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Faridabad Haryana

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

ITA 2041/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanparveen Tayal, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 2, H.No.246/G/Ist Floor, Faridabad. Sector 10, Dlf, Faridabad – 121 006 (Haryana). (Pan : Agrpt5617P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2024 Date Of Order : 17.07.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am:

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

principles of natural justice.” 5. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c)of the Act is a defective one. He submitted that the charge has not been specified in the notice, hence referring to various ... same is reproduced below :- 5 8. We note that assessee has duly raised issue against the assumption of jurisdiction for the levy of section 271(1)(c) that in the penalty notice, relevant limb was not specified whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or furnishing

Hotel President, Haldwani vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

ITA 9/DDN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Counsel for the vehemently contended that the orders of penalty have been passed based on the defective notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the A.O. has not strike off the irrelevant limb and notspecified the charge for which notice was issued ... heard the parties, perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. The assessee produced the notices issued u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein the ITO has not mentioned the specific charge or limb for which the notice was issued and not strike

Hotel President, Haldwani vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

ITA 11/DDN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Hotel President, Haldwani vs. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assesseesare allowed

ITA 10/DDN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 9/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 10/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 11/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2010-11)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11(5)

Consequently, no appropriate action was initiated at that time. Subsequently, the appellant received a show cause notice for the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on 07.02.2025. Upon receiving the notice, the appellant engaged a Chartered Accountant to prepare the response. During the case analysis, it came

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Holding Charge of ITO Exemptions, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 381/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11(5)