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)

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 3798/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3798/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy. Cit-7(3) Times Global Broad Casting Co. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, 1St Floor, Trade House, Kamla Mill Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Compound, Lower Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacct 2259 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. Rashmi Kyal सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 02.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 07.3.2014, Dismissing The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 26.04.2011. 2. At The Very Outset, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ar), The Assessee’S Counsel, Ms. Rashmi Kyal, That The Tax Effect Of The Revenue’S Appeal Is Below Rs.10 Lacs & Which Is Therefore Not Maintainable U/S. 268A Of The Act In View Of The Recent Instruction Issued By The Board (Instruction No. 21 Of 2015 Dated 10.12.2015 (F. No. 279/Misc/142/2007-It(Pt)). The Ld. Departmental Representative

For Appellant: Shri Vachaspati TripathiFor Respondent: Mrs. Rashmi Kyal
Section 268ASection 271(1)(c)

ACIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Monish Builder, Mumbai

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue regarding penalty imposed u/s 271)(1) (c ) stands dismissed

ITA 7068/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8880/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Monish Builders , बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 7B, Cenced Apartments, Tax Circle 19(1), Vs. 318, Union Park, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Palihill Road, Khar, Parel, Mumbi-400052 Mumbai-400012. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7068/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asstt. Commissioner Of बनधम/ M/S Monish Builders , Income Tax Circle 19(1), 7B, Cenced Apartments, Vs. R.No.322, 3Rd Floor, 318, Union Park, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Palihill Road, Khar, Mumbai-400012. Mumbi-400052. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aanfm6701F अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Niraj Sheth प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Revenue By Shri Sanjeev Jain सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. These Two Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) Dated 3.9.2010 In Quantum

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Monish Builders, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, quantum appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue regarding penalty imposed u/s 271)(1) (c ) stands dismissed

ITA 8880/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8880/Mum/2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Monish Builders , बनधम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 7B, Cenced Apartments, Tax Circle 19(1), Vs. 318, Union Park, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Palihill Road, Khar, Parel, Mumbi-400052 Mumbai-400012. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7068/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Asstt. Commissioner Of बनधम/ M/S Monish Builders , Income Tax Circle 19(1), 7B, Cenced Apartments, Vs. R.No.322, 3Rd Floor, 318, Union Park, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Palihill Road, Khar, Mumbai-400012. Mumbi-400052. स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aanfm6701F अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Niraj Sheth प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Revenue By Shri Sanjeev Jain सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. These Two Appeals Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A) Dated 3.9.2010 In Quantum

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40