Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 of the 25,141 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c)

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.

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT
124 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
622
citing judgments

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT
291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court
565
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

Judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

Sumer Corporation, Mumbai vs. Asst Citcen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 494/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Asst CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Scion Marketing (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6463/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P ShahFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Monir D Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposeS

ITA 5677/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5677/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Shri Monir D. Doshi Ito 16(3)-1, बनाम/ 322, Parekh Market, Mumbai Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Adgpd 6937 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. A. Khan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 14.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 17.06.2014 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2005- 06. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & /On Facts In Concluding Penalty Appeal U/S 271(L)(C) Without Proper & Reasonable Opportunity To Plead The Case Before Passing The Appellant Order.

For Appellant: Shri S. C. Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan
Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

The ITO, (International Taxation), Calicut vs. Dr.K.P. Ali, Kasargode

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

ITA 511/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DRFor Respondent: --- None ---
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

M/S Ram Swarup Rungta & Brothers, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 118/RAN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi01 Mar 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mallik, JCIT, ld. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Ams Fashions Private Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata 4, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 1542/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri.N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Sri.Waseem Ahmed Am]

For Appellant: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 71

Gwalior Agencies, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 11, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed on legal ground

ITA 2480/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2479 & 2480/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-2012 & 2012-2013. M/S. Gwalior Agencies, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.72, Godown Street, Of Income Tax, Moolchand Market, Non Corporate Circle -11, Chennai 600 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. V. Jagadisan, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

Gwalior Agencies, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 11, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed on legal ground

ITA 2479/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2479 & 2480/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-2012 & 2012-2013. M/S. Gwalior Agencies, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.72, Godown Street, Of Income Tax, Moolchand Market, Non Corporate Circle -11, Chennai 600 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri. V. Jagadisan, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 22(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

DCIT(It)-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Penford Israel Ltd.(India Branch), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2697/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2697/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dy. Cit (International Taxation)-3(3)(2), M/S. Penford Israel Ltd. (India बनाम/ Room No. 1727, 17Th Floor, Branch) Air India Building, Nariman Point, 1102, Prasad Chamber, Opera Vs. Mumbai-400 021 House, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcp 7258 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajat Mittal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Dixit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 04.01.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2004- 05. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. " Whether On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Holding That Penalty U/S. 271(L)(C) Is Not Attracted With Reference To Addition/Disallowance Made Under Normal Provisions ". 2. "Whether On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified That The Assessing Officer Has Erred In Levying Penalty U/S.

For Appellant: Shri Rajat MittalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Dixit
Section 2Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)

DCIT - 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Networth Stock Broking Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2310/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Neha PranjpeFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(5)Section 73

Nyka Steels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3737/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3737/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Nyka Steels Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Panvel Circle, बनाम/ C-17/6, Midc, Taloja Area, Panvel Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfn 7647 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 10.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 21.03.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2009- 10. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Reassessment Proceeding Initiated U/S 147 By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 M/S. Nyka Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Cit 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Disallowance Of Genuine Purchases Of Rs.1,51,97,687/- As Bogus Purchase From Suspicious Parties. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Levy Of Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of Income Tax Act. 4. On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of Penalty Proceeding U/S 271Fl)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The E-Return Of Income Was Filed On 12.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,15,41,380/-. Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 13.12.2011 Determining Total Income Of Rs 2,23,69,210/-. Subsequently

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271f

JCIT (OSD) 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Aptech Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3369/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3369/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dy. Cit-9(1)(2), M/S. Aptech Limited बनाम/ Room No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, A-65, Aptech House, Midc, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadca 0602 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ram Tiwari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rutuja Pawar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 29.04.2014 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2007- 08. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: I) “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit- (A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty On The Issue Of Provision For Rebate Claimed Without Appreciating The Fact That The Same Was A Mere Provision & Was 2 Dy. Cit Vs. M/S. Aptech Limited Patently Not Allowable Which Amounts To Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars In The Return Of Income, Thus Liable For Penalty?" Ii) “'Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit- (A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty On The Issue Of Provision For Leave Encashment Without Appreciating The Fact That The Same Was Not Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Of Income As Mandated By Clause (F) Of Section 43B Of The It, Act, Thereby Making A Claim Which Is Patently Inaccurate, Hence Liable For Penalty?" '

For Appellant: Shri Ram TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rutuja Pawar
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(2)Section 43B

M/S Akshaj Infra Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 1199/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Addressing The Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Present Appeal It Is Appropriate To First Address The Delay Of 112 Days Pointed Out By The Registry In The Filing Of The Present Appeal By The Assessee. 3. The Ld. Ar Inviting Attention To The Condonation Of Delay Application Supported By An Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assessee Mr Surinder Singh & The Affidavit Of The Employees Sh.Deepak Uniyal Submitted That Delay In The Peculiar Facts & Circumstances Of The Present Case Has Occurred For Reasons Beyond The Control Of The Assessee. Inviting Attention To The Application Filed It Was Submitted That The Documents For The Filing Of The Appeal Were Handed Over To The Assessee’S Employee Sh.Deepak Uniyal To Be Further Handed Over To The Counsel. However, The Said Employee Got Busy In His Engagement Ceremony In May,2018 Which Was Subsequently Culminated In Solemnizing His Marriage. The Delay Has Occurred On

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

ITO, Barnala vs. M/S the Truck Operator Union, Barnala

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of

ITA 689/CHANDI/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh
Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271C

Jagdish Bhagwan Mirchandani, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1620/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

J M Industries, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1064/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1061 To 1064/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 वष"

For Appellant: Sri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Sri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

J M Industries, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1063/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1061 To 1064/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 वष"

For Appellant: Sri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Sri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

J M Industries, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1062/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1061 To 1064/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 वष"

For Appellant: Sri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Sri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

J M Industries, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1061/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1061 To 1064/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 वष"

For Appellant: Sri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Sri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

Sanjay D. Kakade, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 17/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)