← 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)

M/S G.D. Tambi & Sons, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 177/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

claim is not found to be bonafule, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act If we take the view that a cloim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation

M/S G.D. Tambi & Sons, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 176/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 24

claim is not found to be bonafule, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act If we take the view that a cloim which is wholly untenable in law and has absolutely no foundation

Ramesh Kumar, Karnal vs. Income Tax Officer, Karnal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1279/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2012-13) Ramesh Kumar, House No.2027, Opposite Civil Hospital, Nissing, Karnal, Haryana 132024 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Azopk-6953-F बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Sector 12, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Karnal, Haryana 132001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri R R Singla, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 20/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 04.01.2025, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri R R Singla, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That In Assessment Proceedings U/S. 144/147 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Addition Was Made On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits Of Rs.28,50,000/- In Punjab National Bank, Karnal. The Assessee Failed To Respond To The Notices U/S. 148 Of The Act As Parallel Proceedings U/S. 148 R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri R R Singla, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

vide order dated 02.02.2022 on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was initiated on one limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas, it was levied on another limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the penalty is liable ... dated 08.01.2019 is defective. The assessee has not struck off irrelevant contents in the notice including the irrelevant limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee

Som Nath Virmani and Sons HUF, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Gurgaon, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5081/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Som Nath Virmani & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sons Huf, Ward-5(1), Flat No. 303, Soverign 1, Gurgaon Vatika City, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanhs1927F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somit Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials ... completed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act determining total income at Rs 72,16,330/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income vide notice dated 26-03-2022, which culminated in the levy of penalty

Shashi Jivanlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1969/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

dated 26.07.2024, for the Assessment Years (A.Υ.) 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013- 14 in respect of penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act'). 2. There was delay of 51 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed an affidavit ... accordingly addition of Rs.47,42,664/- was made to the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer had also initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, a separate penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.03.2018 was passed imposing penalty

Shashi Jivanlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1968/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

dated 26.07.2024, for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013- 14 in respect of penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. There was delay of 51 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining ... accordingly addition of Rs.47,42,664/- was made to the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer had also initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, a separate ITA Nos.1967, 1968 & 1969/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shashi Jivanlal Patel

Shashi Jivanlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 1967/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

dated 26.07.2024, for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013- 14 in respect of penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). 2. There was delay of 51 days in filing these appeals. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining ... accordingly addition of Rs.47,42,664/- was made to the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer had also initiated penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, a separate ITA Nos.1967, 1968 & 1969/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shashi Jivanlal Patel

Shravan Singh Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Thane

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

ITA 6611/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDAPRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)Section 69A

which are consequential in nature and therefore, needs no separate adjudication. As regards the challenge against the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same is premature in nature and therefore is dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly

Percival Joseph Pereira, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It) -3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4662/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

appeal, addition has been deleted, the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) on the said addition loses its ground. Sub clause (iii) to section 271(1)(c) provides for imposition of penalty on the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of concealment of particulars of income

Percival Joseph Pereira, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4661/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(5)(b)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

appeal, addition has been deleted, the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) on the said addition loses its ground. Sub clause (iii) to section 271(1)(c) provides for imposition of penalty on the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of concealment of particulars of income

Smt. Rajeshwari Devi, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Shamli

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1221/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav SachdevaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

levied penalty for concealment of income. Penalty was initiated on one limb and finally levied on different limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, such penalty is unsustainable. 4. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee and upholding the impugned

Nina Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1878/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

interest has been also wrongly worked out. The AO has also erred on facts and in law in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during

Hersh Vardhan Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1877/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

interest has been also wrongly worked out. The AO has also erred on facts and in law in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during

Sangita Kshetry, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Tax. 2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

ITA 1876/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 148

interest has been also wrongly worked out. The AO has also erred on facts and in law in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during

Rajeev Kapoor, Bhopal vs. ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 828/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajeev Kapoor, Acit-2(1), बनाम/ C/O Arera Auto Centre, Bhopal Vs. E-5, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Pan: Adupk1034D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2025

Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

completely ignoring the laid down law and the cases cited by the Appellant during the appellate proceedings, that no penalty is exigible under section 271(1)(c ) in case of addition under section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, where, in the show cause notices issued, the AO has not specified the limb of Section 271(1)(c ) under which he has issued the notice for levying the penalty, completely ignoring the laid down law and the cases cited

Dipakkumar Pushkarray Vyas, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 105/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 151

Shah Prop. Akshar Corporation without applying his independent mind and therefore was not justified. [20] That the appellant has not committed default of Section 271(1)(C) of the IT Act as the sales has been recorded in the books of account and therefore there is no concealment of income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Prabha Farms Private Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1748/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. Prabha Farms Private Aurangabad. Limited, Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent C. O. No.07/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1748/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Prabha Farms Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Limited, Aurangabad. Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.” 6. Ld. AR further relied on the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case ... 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

Arbor Charitable Foundation, Khammam vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1217/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 25Section 271(1)(c)

assessments had been made by the learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO”) for A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2015-16; b) that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) had been initiated for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16; c) that during financial year

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1266/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

Others 18. The learned AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds. The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise modify ... assessee submitted before us that the AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed on the issues under appeal. 41. The Ld.CIT(A) in his Order for the A.Ys under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1264/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 144ASection 14ASection 40Section 9(1)

Others 18. The learned AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds. The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise modify ... assessee submitted before us that the AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed on the issues under appeal. 41. The Ld.CIT(A) in his Order for the A.Ys under