Section 115JC of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 115JC is CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery (392 ITR 4), cited in 417 of the 71 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 115JC

CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery
392 ITR 4 · 2017 · High Court
417
citing judgments

A penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is unsustainable if it is initiated on one limb (e.g., concealment of income) but ultimately levied on the other limb (e.g., furnishing inaccurate particulars). This also applies if the initial penalty notice is vague or ambiguous regarding the specific charge.

14 In Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs
6 SCC 564 · 1997 · Reported
184
citing judgments

Sun Export Corporation held that any ambiguity in a tax exemption provision or notification must be interpreted in favor of the assessee or the subject.

Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors
13 SCC 369 · 2008 · Supreme Court
139
citing judgments

For the applicability of Section 271(1)(c) penalty, the Assessing Officer must be satisfied that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars; however, this satisfaction is not required to be recorded in a particular manner or reduced to writing.

Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills
13 SCC 448 · 2009 · Reported
91
citing judgments

For the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c), the specific conditions laid down in the section must be demonstrably met. The assessee's filed return is the primary document for furnishing income particulars, and inaccuracies therein are crucial for penalty imposition.

Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
135 Taxmann.com 244 · 2022 · High Court
45
citing judgments

A notice imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it shows non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer regarding the specific grounds for levying the penalty.

CTT v. DSM Group of Industries
4 SCC 272 · 2005 · Reported
24
citing judgments

Eligibility criteria in an exemption notification must be strictly construed, but once satisfied, the notification should be liberally interpreted.

CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd.
21 Taxmann.com 184 · 2012 · Supreme Court
15
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions or disallowances are made under normal provisions but tax is levied under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) provisions (Sections 115JB/115JC), as no tax is sought to be evaded in such a scenario.

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. v. DCIT
111 Taxmann.com 353 · 2019 · Reported
11
citing judgments

The Commissioner can initiate proceedings under section 263 if the Assessing Officer makes an assessment without proper application of mind or without conducting necessary inquiries, especially when such inquiries were warranted by the facts.

Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. v. DCIT
74 Taxmann.com 105 · 2016 · High Court
9
citing judgments
Id. DR. in Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dilip Kumar and Co.
361 ELT 577 · 2018 · Supreme Court
8
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 115JC

DCIT, Ncc - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Dfe Pharma India LLP., Cuddalore

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 282/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1212/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Dfe Pharma India Llp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of B-4, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Kudikadu, Cuddalore 607 005. Non Corporate Circle 1(1), [Pan:Aaifd2025J] Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.282/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dfe Pharma India Llp, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 1(1), B-4, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Chennai. Kudikadu, Cuddalore 607 005. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.S.D. Babu, Advocate Department By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit & Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Chennai Dated 27.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Revenue Preferred An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2

For Appellant: Shri G.S.D. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT &
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

Dfe Pharma India LLP., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, CC - 2(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 1212/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1212/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Dfe Pharma India Llp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of B-4, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Kudikadu, Cuddalore 607 005. Non Corporate Circle 1(1), [Pan:Aaifd2025J] Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.282/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dfe Pharma India Llp, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 1(1), B-4, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Chennai. Kudikadu, Cuddalore 607 005. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.S.D. Babu, Advocate Department By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit & Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Chennai Dated 27.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Revenue Preferred An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2

For Appellant: Shri G.S.D. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT &
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80P