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 Orchid Pharma Ltd. (Formerly M.S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.), Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 277/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.276 & 277/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Orchid Pharma Ltd. [Formerly Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of M.S. Orchid Chemicals & Income Tax, Pharmaceuticals Ltd.] 313, Orchid Central Circle 1(1), Towers, Valluvarkottam High Road, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaco0402B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. & Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Both Dated 28.02.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 238Section 271(1)(c)Section 30(2)Section 31(1)Section 35Section 36Section 37

M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd. (Formerly M.S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.), Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 276/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.276 & 277/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Orchid Pharma Ltd. [Formerly Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of M.S. Orchid Chemicals & Income Tax, Pharmaceuticals Ltd.] 313, Orchid Central Circle 1(1), Towers, Valluvarkottam High Road, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaco0402B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. & Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Both Dated 28.02.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 238Section 271(1)(c)Section 30(2)Section 31(1)Section 35Section 36Section 37

Rockwell Tradevin Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1501/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1501/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rockwell Tradevin Pvt. Ltd...…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant 187, Rabindra Sarini, 2Nd Floor, Room No.73, Kolkata – 700007. [Pan: Aafcr1641C] Vs. Ito, Ward-13(3), Kolkata.......................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. S. Gupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 24, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.06.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeals: “Ground 1: That The Ld. Ao Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Passing The Order Appealed Against In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Order Was At All Liable To Be Passed & The Lad. Cita) Erred In Confirming The Same. Ground 2: That The Ld. Ao Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,99,00,000/- U/S. 68 In Respect Of Share Capital Raised During The Year By Issuing 39,800 Equity Shares @ Of Rs.500/, Including Share Premium Of Rs.490/- Per Share, In As Much As In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case No Such Addition Was At All Called For & The Ld. Cita) Erred In Confirming The Same.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68