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)

Salesh Tyagi (Deceased, Through Legal Heir Smt. Shalini Tyagi, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Yamuna Nagar.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 177/CHANDI/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Oct 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Rajesh Damodarlal Sharma, Jm 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.176/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.177/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Salesh Tyagi Ito Ward – 5 (Through L/H Smt. Shalini Tyagi) Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. C/O Shri Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) Haryana – 135001 #527, Sector – 10D Chandigarh – 160011 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeupt-5583-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) & Sh. Kumar Sen Verma (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-09-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 01-10-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Assails Confirmation Of Quantum Addition As Well As Consequential Penalty U/S 271(1)(C). The Quantum Appeal Ita No.176/Chandi/2026

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) and Sh. Kumar Sen Verma (Advocate) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Salesh Tyagi (Deceased, Through Legal Heir Smt. Shalini Tyagi, Yamuna Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Yamuna Nagar.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 176/CHANDI/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Oct 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Rajesh Damodarlal Sharma, Jm 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.176/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.177/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Salesh Tyagi Ito Ward – 5 (Through L/H Smt. Shalini Tyagi) Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. C/O Shri Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) Haryana – 135001 #527, Sector – 10D Chandigarh – 160011 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeupt-5583-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) & Sh. Kumar Sen Verma (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-09-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 01-10-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Assails Confirmation Of Quantum Addition As Well As Consequential Penalty U/S 271(1)(C). The Quantum Appeal Ita No.176/Chandi/2026

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) and Sh. Kumar Sen Verma (Advocate) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)