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)

D.C.I.T.-3(2), Mumbai vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5332/MUM/2008[1993-1994]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2016AY 1993-1994

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5652&7013/Mum/2004 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1993-1994 & 1994-1995) M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5, Limited, 36-38A, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Bhavan, 227 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5332/Mum/2008 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1993-1994) Dcit-3(2) Mumbai-400020 Vs. M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 36-38A, Nariman Bhavan, 227 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal & Chetan Kakka याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajiv Pant सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/11/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Pant
Section 143(3)Section 147

M/S. Kotak Mahendra Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen. Cir. - 5, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7013/MUM/2004[1994-1995]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2016AY 1994-1995

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5652&7013/Mum/2004 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1993-1994 & 1994-1995) M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5, Limited, 36-38A, Nariman Mumbai-400020 Bhavan, 227 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.5332/Mum/2008 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1993-1994) Dcit-3(2) Mumbai-400020 Vs. M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, 36-38A, Nariman Bhavan, 227 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal & Chetan Kakka याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajiv Pant सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/11/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M):

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Pant
Section 143(3)Section 147

Jatin P. Ajmera, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5569/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Shjogindersingh & Rajendraआयकर अपील सं./Ita/5569/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Jatin P. Ajmera Income Tax Officer-21(1)(2) 36, Nandavan, Ansari Road C-10, 604, Bkc, Bandra Vile Parle (W) Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 056. Pan:Aabpa 8021 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ashish Heliwal Assessee By: Shri Rajesh B. Gupte सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 23.03.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) अनुसार Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 19.06.2014,Of Cit(A)-32,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed Appeal For The Year Under Consideration.The Effective Ground Of Appeal Is About Imposition Of Penalty For Concealing The Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh B. GupteFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal
Section 132Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)