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)

M/S. Tropex Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Ultra Marketing Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1815/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.1371&1815/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tropex Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Ujjawal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.).............................……….……Appellant 113, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Aabct1459N] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(4), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr & Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 30, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order 23.03.2015 & Another Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 28.09.2015 Against The Assessee. The Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] Dated 23.03.2015 & The Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 28.09.2015, Which Is Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2015. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Stated At The Bench That Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order & Relating To The Same Assessee, Therefore, They May Be Heard Together & Decided On Merits Of The Case. The Ld. Ar Has Further Stated That Ita No.1371/Kol/2024 Is Delayed By 404 Days & Ita

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

M/S. Tropex Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (Successor to Ujjawal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1371/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.1371&1815/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tropex Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Ujjawal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.).............................……….……Appellant 113, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata -1. [Pan:Aabct1459N] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(4), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit-Dr & Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 30, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order 23.03.2015 & Another Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 28.09.2015 Against The Assessee. The Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’] Dated 23.03.2015 & The Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 28.09.2015, Which Is Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2015. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Stated At The Bench That Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same Assessment Order & Relating To The Same Assessee, Therefore, They May Be Heard Together & Decided On Merits Of The Case. The Ld. Ar Has Further Stated That Ita No.1371/Kol/2024 Is Delayed By 404 Days & Ita

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Ayyappankavu Chandrasekharan Vijayalakshmi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-14(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2136/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2136/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ayyappankavu Chandrasekharan Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Vijayalakshmi, 4, Thiruvengadam Income Tax, Street, West Mambalam, Corporate Circle 14(1), Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadpv3516D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 22 Days. On Perusal Of The Petition Filed In Support Of Notarized Affidavit, Submissions Of The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find The Reasons Explained By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)