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)

Abhimanyu B Singh, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer Ward (1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1755/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraabhimanyu B Singh, Income Tax Officer, A-1001, Bestech Park View Ward-1(1), Spa Next, Sector-67, Vs. Gurugram. Gurgaon-122101. Pan-Afrpc2137A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Mohd. Fesal Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/08/2025 O R D E R Per Madhumita Roy, Jm: The Matter Relates To Confirmation Of Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi Dated 19.02.2025 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. At The Time Of Hearing Of The Instant Appeal, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submits Before Us That The Quantum Appeal Has Been Set Aside To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication Of The Same By The Order Dated 30.06.20205 Passed By Co-Ordinate Bench In Ita No.1738/Del/2025 And, Therefore, Instant Issue Also Requires To Be Set Aside To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication. Such Abhimanyu B Singh Vs. Ito Prayer Made By The Ld. Ar Has Not Been Objected By The Ld. Dr With All His Fairness. 3. Having Heard The Ld. Counsels Appearing For The Parties & Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Particularly Quantum Appeal Having Been Disposed Off By Remitting The Issues To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication By The Co-Ordinate Bench, This Appeal Is Disposed Off By Setting Aside The Issue To The File Of Ld. Cit(A) For Further Consideration. The Appeal Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 271(1)(c)

Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Chhaniyara, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 1 (2) (1) Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 280/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 280/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: (2016-17) Mahendrakumar Bhanjibhai Income Tax Officer, Chaniyara, Gaushala Plot, Kolki बनाम Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot, Aaykar Rajkot, Kolki So, Bhawan, Rajkot-360001 /Vs. Rajkot-360470 स्थायी लेखा सं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Astpc9150G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ld. A.R. राजस्वकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R. सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/08/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)",Dated 12.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act, Dated 28.02.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 210Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271F