← All Phrases

“Section 275(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)181 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 275(1)(c) is CIT v. Eli Lily & Co. (312 ITR 225), cited in 221 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 275(1)(c)

CIT v. Eli Lily & Co.
312 ITR 225 · 2009 · Supreme Court
221
citing judgments

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, which mandates tax withholding on payments to non-residents, applies only to sums that are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. Tax withholding provisions are not charging provisions.

CIT v. Hissaria Bros.
291 ITR 244 · 2007 · High Court
132
citing judgments

Penalty proceedings for defaults under Sections 269SS and 269T are independent of assessment proceedings; therefore, the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for imposing such penalties is not contingent on the completion of appellate quantum proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd.
124 Taxmann.com 249 · 2021 · Supreme Court
105
citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the notice issued under Section 274 fails to specifically mention whether the charge relates to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer must specify the exact charge for the penalty to be valid.

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd.
394 ITR 312 · 2017 · High Court
86
citing judgments

The date of initiation of penalty proceedings for the purpose of Section 275(1)(c) is when the Assessing Officer records a satisfaction or recommends penalty, not the later date when the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issues the penalty notice.

CIT v. Hissaria Brothers
386 ITR 719 · 2016 · Supreme Court
68
citing judgments

The relevant date for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for passing penalty orders under Sections 271D and 271E is the date of passing the assessment order.

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City
64 Taxmann.com 75 · 2015 · Supreme Court
49
citing judgments

For initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D or 271E, the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction in the assessment order; non-recording of such satisfaction is fatal to the penalty.

Grihalakshmi Vision v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
379 ITR 100 · 2015 · High Court
42
citing judgments

The satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is not a prerequisite for the initiation of penalty proceedings. Penalty proceedings initiated by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax are valid. The date of the show cause notice by the penalty imposing authority is relevant for computing limitation for imposing penalty under Section 271DA.

Judgments citing Section 275(1)(c)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 271/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Vs. Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

taxmann.com 441 (Rajasthan)/[2017] 397 ITR 650 (Rajasthan) [19-10 2016] as under:- "8. Taking into consideration that under section 275(1)(c) of the Act, it is no doubt that the Commissioner is the competent authority and other contention that the notice was within limitation, in our view ... Additional CIT Issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c), i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 268/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.268, 270, 271 & 274/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income बनाम Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Tax, Vs. Limited Central Circle-02, Jaipur F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R. K. Bhatra, CA राजस्व की

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

taxmann.com 441 (Rajasthan)/[2017] 397 ITR 650 (Rajasthan) [19-10 2016] as under:- "8. Taking into consideration that under section 275(1)(c) of the Act, it is no doubt that the Commissioner is the competent authority and other contention that the notice was within limitation, in our view ... Additional CIT Issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c), i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which

Sree Krishna Hardware, Kasaragod vs. Deputy Commissioner of It, Kannur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 538/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Sree Krishna Hardware ..….……….Appellant Kmc Srikrishna Souodha M.G. Road, Anebagilu Kasargod - 671121 [Pan:Aaifs8343N] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of It , Kannur . ….. …..Respondent Appellant By: Shri. None Respondent By Smt . Leena Lal, Snr,Ar Date Of Hearing: 05 .06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.04.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Postal Trading Of Cement, Steel & Other Building Materials. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017–18, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,69,82,950/-. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued To The Assessee On Various Dates. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings

For Appellant: Shri. None
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 274Section 275(1)(c)Section 44A

rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We observe that the penalty notice was issued on 25.12.2019 and, in accordance with Section 275(1)(c) of the Act and the penalty order should have been passed on or before 30.06.2020. However, in this case, the penalty order

Aare Nagaraju, West Godavari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Eluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.178/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Aare Nagaraju, Vs. Income Tax Officer, West Godavari District, Ward-1, Andhra Pradesh-534475. Eluru. Pan: Arupa1167B (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 263Section 264Section 269TSection 271ESection 274Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(c)

lacks legal validity. 2. The subject order levying penalty U/s. 271E of the Act is barred by limitation, as per the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order lacks legal validity and should be quashed.” 3. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that ... provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the order for levy of penalty ought to have been passed within the period of six months from the end of the month in which the notice was issued to the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that considering the fact

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)

above mentioned period of 20 Months and 7 days is required to be added to the two time periods specified in section 275(1)(c). The emerging limitation dates are as under. 1st limitation date-For deducing the 1st limitation date, the date on which penalty proceedings were initiated needs ... granted immunity from penalty and prosecution vide the said para 10.2 of the order u/s 245D(4). As per the first limb of section 275(1)(c), no penalty can be levied beyond end of the financial year in which the said proceedings are initiated. As such, the 1st limitation

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

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)

above mentioned period of 20 Months and 7 days is required to be added to the two time periods specified in section 275(1)(c). The emerging limitation dates are as under. 1st limitation date-For deducing the 1st limitation date, the date on which penalty proceedings were initiated needs ... granted immunity from penalty and prosecution vide the said para 10.2 of the order u/s 245D(4). As per the first limb of section 275(1)(c), no penalty can be levied beyond end of the financial year in which the said proceedings are initiated. As such, the 1st limitation

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 362/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.361/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Madhu Devi V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex #27-23-66, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aelpj0707L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.362/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rakesh Kumar Jain V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(1) C.R. Building, 1St Floor Annex D.No. 27-12-35, Chetla Bazar M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520002 Governorpet, Vijayawada – 520002 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Astps2713B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

dismissed. 2. The subject order levying penalty u/s 271D of the IT Act is barred by limitation, as per the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the IT Act. Therefore, the impugned order lacks legal validity and should be quashed.” 8. At the outset, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR ... submitted that the penalty order under section 271D of the Act is barred by limitation as per provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. On this issue, he provided a copy of the CBDT notification dated 25th June, 2021 and submitted that the end date to which