“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)

Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

case where additions to income are as a result of disallowance of deduction u/s 35AD not attracting the provisions of Section 271(1)(c). 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.5,18,55,995/- u/s 271 ... disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee under section 35AD of the IT Act, 1961. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealed income. Accordingly, notice under section 274 r.w.s.271(1

ACIT-CC-1, Chandigarh vs. M/S Bajwa Developers Ltd., Kharar

ITA 344/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

High Court has held that to claim immunity from levy of penalty in terms of the provisions of Explanation 5 to section 271(1) (c) of the Act, the tax on the surrendered income along with the interest is required to be paid immediately and in any case before

ACIT, CC-1, Chandigarh vs. M/S Bajwa Developers Ltd., Kharar

ITA 343/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

M/S Bajwa Developers Ltd., Kharar vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

ITA 1529/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

Sundek India Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1706/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr DR

Section 2(24)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory: 359 ITR 565 held that notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act, i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where ... mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law . 2) Bombay High Court: Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs ACIT Section 271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment-Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, order

Priti Somani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Gangtok

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Coubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1387 & 1388/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 & 2013-2014) Priti Somani, Vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Gangtok C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Axdps 0604 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Shri Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

penalty notice was adjudicated by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court [though in a different context i.e notice issued u/s. 274 read with section 271(1)( c) of the Act] in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein

Priti Somani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -3(1), Gangtok

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1387/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

Infiniti Retail Limited, Mumbai vs. Th Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6336/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)

learned AO in respect of depreciation on goodwill which was debited to the profit and loss account of the appellant. Penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 5. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding ... assessment order passed by learned AO wherein the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, vary, omit, or substitute the aforesaid grounds of appeal or add a new ground or grounds

Srijan Control Drives, Pune vs. DCIT Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 2204/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

claim in the return of income would not ipso facto reflect the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in terms of section 271(1)(c) of 4 the Act. He submitted that the assessee has substantiated as to why the mistake has happened which was a genuine human error

Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune

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

ITA 2144/PUN/2024[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, I consider this to be a fit case for imposing penalty under Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing this income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This penalty may range from ... initiate penalty proceedings as deemed fit and proper, in accordance with statutory provisions. Therefore, there is no unjustification in issuing a notice under Section 271(1)(c) as the immunity from penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was withdrawn and this direction was incorporated into the order. Since the assessee

DCIT, CC-2(1), Pune vs. Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav, Pune

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

ITA 1307/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

Shivaji Laxman Sahane, Nashik vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1078/PUN/2024[A.Y. 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1078/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S.ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

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

show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 7. Subsequently, ld. AO again issued following notice dated 11.03.2016 because the proceedings initiated by the notice dated ... make your submission in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271(1)(c). 03 If you fail to avail of this opportunity, it will be presumed that you have no more say in this regard and appropriate

Chandrakala Narala, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2575/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Pranit Tanna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 282ASection 69A

time alert". 3. Continuously there was non-compliance of the statutory notices issued from time to time to the assessee. A notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Act was also issued to the assessee but there was no response. A show cause notice was issued to the asessee

M/S. Kishor D Naik (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle -2, Thane

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

ITA 5587/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292C

which is evident from the search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act, hence the assessée is subjected to penal provisions of section 271(1)(c)of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s.271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are therefore separately initiated for misreporting of income

Sushma Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 1328/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Arbind SharmaFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee challenged the order of the assessment dated 26.04.2017 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, [ for short Act] by ITO, Ward 5(1), Jaipur [ for short AO]. 2 Sushma Sharma vs. ITO 2. In this ... short capital gain by the AO (ITA Ward 5(1), Jaipur) (C) Appeal No. CIT(A) Jaipur 2/11448/2017-18 – under section 271 (1)(c) against the penalty of Rs. 2,79,851/-. 2. Wrong and different-different addresses in notices:- (a.) That the Assessment Order & Computation Form by AO dated

Revathikumar Sudha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncw-19(1), Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 305/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 304 & 305/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Revathikumar Sudha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 29, 3Rd Main Road, Thilaiganga Income Tax, Nagar, Chennai 600 061. Non Corporate Ward –19(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aztps-8926-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Both Dated 12.12.2024 Pertains To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Towards Quantum Addition As Well As Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

short] both dated 12.12.2024 pertains to the assessment year 2015-16 towards quantum addition as well as penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The assessee raised 15 grounds of appeal, wherein, besides challenging exparte order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee also disputed ... raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. I.T.A. No. 305/Chny/2025 10. This appeal is directed against confirmation of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the quantum addition did not attain its finality, as we have remitted the matter to the file

Revathikumar Sudha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncw-19(1, Chennai

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 304/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

Husna Begam, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana

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

ITA 970/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Adj. Application (Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr .DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

treated as income from undisclosed sources under Section 69. The AO observed that this constituted concealment of income and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Additionally, due to persistent non-compliance with statutory notices, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) were

Singanamala Sarala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 200/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 269S

agree with the above said direction issued by the ld.PCIT to the Assessing Officer to initiate the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The law does not permit the delegation of authority by the ld.PCIT to Assessing Officer for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Firstly ... perusal of the above, we found that, the co-ordinate bench of ITAT has given their findings in light of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, however, the issue before us is related to penalty u/s.271D of the Act. Further more, the power of levy of penalty

Bosch Global Software Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1696/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: and Smt. Pratibha R – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT

Section 10ASection 32(1)(iia)

appeal pertain to the levy of interest under section 234B and initiation of penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 33. At the outset, we note that the issue raised in impugned grounds of appeal are either consequential or premature to decide. Hence the same are dismissed