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)

Rajiv Panjwani, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(1), Lucknow

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 665/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.664 & 665/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Rajiv Panjwani V. The Income Tax Officer, 111, Kesab Bhaduri Road, Ward-5(1) Aminabad Park, S.O, Lucknow- Pratyakshkar Bhawan, 226018. Ramtirth Marg, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Acwpp8188L अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Smt Pratibha Singh, Acit (Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28 07 2026 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 24 08 2026 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Kul Bharat.: These Appeals, By The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 18.07.2025 Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up The Appeal Ita. No. 664/Lkw/2025, Pertaining To The A.Y. 2013-14 Is Taken As A Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Proceedings Initiated Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Which Proceedings Being Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law, Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Pratibha Singh, ACIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Rajiv Panjwani, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Lucknow

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 664/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Aug 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita Nos.664 & 665/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Rajiv Panjwani V. The Income Tax Officer, 111, Kesab Bhaduri Road, Ward-5(1) Aminabad Park, S.O, Lucknow- Pratyakshkar Bhawan, 226018. Ramtirth Marg, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Acwpp8188L अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Smt Pratibha Singh, Acit (Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28 07 2026 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 24 08 2026 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Kul Bharat.: These Appeals, By The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 18.07.2025 Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up The Appeal Ita. No. 664/Lkw/2025, Pertaining To The A.Y. 2013-14 Is Taken As A Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Proceedings Initiated Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Which Proceedings Being Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law, Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Pratibha Singh, ACIT (DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 69C