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)

Kumarapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Number 2147 Thamallackal, Alappuzha vs. Assessing Officer Ward 2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Kumarapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Number 2147 Thamallackal, Alappuzha vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 2, Alappuzha

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 726/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

The Market Research Society of India, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5087/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap (Sr. DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 274

Naveen Kumar, I.T.O.-19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Industrial Corporation, Mumbai

ITA 4160/MUM/2024[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal SethiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Sanjay Kumar, Uae vs. Int Tax Ward 4(2)(1), Mum, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of appellant is allowed

ITA 3505/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Omkareshwar Chidarasanjay Kumar, C/O Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd. 501, Arena Spcaes, Off Jvlr Road, Behind Majas Depot Jogeshwari East Maharashtra ……………. Appellant Pan: Aazps9534Q V/S Income Tax Officer (It)– 4(2)(1), Room No.1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400021 Maharashtra

For Appellant: Ms. Riddhi JainFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 90

Alfalah Educational & Welfare Society, Faizabad vs. Assessment Unit Itd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 144/ALLD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Alfalah Educational & Welfare Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Society Qusba Bhadarsa Department Bharatkund, Faizabad, U.P. Pan:Aadfi7669A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.09.2014. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. The 1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made On Income Of Rs.2,45,71,147/- U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Vide Order Dated 02.03.2023 Is Bad Both On The Facts & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Appeal Decided Ex-Parte By Cit Appeal Nfac By Order Dated 13.09.2024 Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity To The Assessee Is Highly Unjustified. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter Proceedings As Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Is An Illegal Proceedings & There Is No Concealment Of Income & Moreover There Was No Proper Satisfaction Was Recorded By The Department For Initiation Of Proceedings Hence Entire Proceedings Liable To Be Annulled.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Shyam Babu Kesarwani, Kaushambi vs. ITO Ward- 2 (5), Kaushambi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/ALLD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shyam Babu Kesarwani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tilhapur Mor, Kaushambi Ward-2(5), Kaushambi Pan:Bgepk4506N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Act Passed On 22.12.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Made U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By Order Dated 31.10.2019 On Income Of Rs.28,27,870/- Is Bad Both On The Fact & In Law. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Proceeding As Initiated U/S 147 Is Not Valid Proceeding In The Eyes Of Law Since No Material Was Brought On Record That Assessee Has Concealed Any Income & The Issue Again Taken Up In The Reassessment Proceeding Which Was Already Before The Assessing Officer At The Time Of Original Assessment & After Due Application Of Mind The Then Assessing Officer Passed Speaking Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act Hence Simply On Change Of Opinion The Reassessment Proceeding U/S 147 Of The Act As Initiated Are Bad In Law. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter The Addition Of Rs.25,25,415/- As Made By The Assessing Officer By Passing Ex-Parte Order On Account Of Excess Deposit In Bank Considered As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act Is Highly Unjustified & His Action As Confirmed By Cit(A) Is Highly Unjustified.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

M/S Jyoti Erectors Pvt Ltd., Allahabad vs. DCIT Circle-2, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 77/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 M/S Jyoti Erectors Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Near Amar Ujala Press Gt, Road, Circle-2, Allahabad Bamrauli, Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Aaccj0409K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Allahabad Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.02.2020. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Were As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2018 Framed U/S 143(3) Of The It Act Is Bad Both On The Facts & In Law & Vide Such Order The Income So Determined At Rs. 63,12,477/- In Arbitrary Manner Is Unjustified & Wrong Hence The Declared Income Of Rs. 18,86,600/- On The Basis Of Closed Books Of Accounts Should Have Been Accepted In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2- That In Any View Of The Matter The Addition Of Rs. 44,25,877/- As Made By The Assessing Officer By Applying A Net Rate Of 7 Percent On Declared Receipt Of Rs. 9,01,78,242/- By Ignoring Closed Books Of Accounts Is Highly Unjustified & Wrong & Also Provisions Of Section 145(3) Of The It Act Has Been Wrongly Invoked. Moreover No Comparable Case Has Been Cited By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order For Applying Such Higher Net Profit Rate Nor Past History In Assessee Own Case Was Considered Hence The Addition So Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Cit(A) Is Highly Unjustified.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250

Shri Subhash Chotamal Agarwal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 679/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

Shri Subhash Chotamal Agarwal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 678/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

Shri Rakesh Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 677/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

Shri Rakesh Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 676/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

Shri Rakesh Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 675/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

Shri Pawan Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 674/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

Shri Pawan Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 673/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

Shri Pawan Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 672/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

Shri Pawan Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 671/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

Shri Pawan Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 670/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, (Ltu), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 5603/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Simplex Engineering & Vs. Dcit, Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Ltu, 1503, Hemkunt Towers, New Delhi 98, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan :Aabcs4930P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Sh. Shivam Malik, Adv. Department By Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.12.2024 Order

Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Veena Gupta, New Delhi

ITA 6474/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 153ASection 3