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)

Shivanand Mahadeoappa Ople, Beed vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Beed

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 950/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.950/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivanand Mahadeoappa Ople, The Income Tax Officer, Mangalnath Colony, Gajanan Vs Ward-1, Beed. Krupa Niwas, Beed Road, Malalgaon – 431131. Pan: Aahpo 1059 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 05.04.2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Arising Out Of The Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 5/12/2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, It May Please Be Held That The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Is Null & Void Since The Initiation Of Penalty Proceedings & Notice U/S.274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Both Are Without Proper Application Of Mind. - Rs.1,56,101/- 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Penalty On The Capital Gain Amount Of Rs.7,80,508/- Arose Due To Difference Between Indexed Cost Of Acquisition As On 01/04/1981 Allowed By The Ao In Assessment As Compared To That Finalized In Appeal By Cit(A) On Basis Of Valuation Done By Dvo. The Said Penalty May Please Be Deleted. Shivanand Mahadeoappa Ople [A]

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

Sandip D. Patil, L/H of Late Dinkar A. Patil, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (2), Kolhapur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1682/PUN/2019[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Oct 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.1680, 1681 & 1682 /Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1996-97, 97-98 & 1998-99 Late Dinkar Arjun Patil, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Sandip D. Patil, Vs Ward-1(2), Kolhapur. 790/40, Raigad Colony, Panchgaon Road, Kolhapur – 416008. Pan: Ahipp 8226 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For Assessment Years I.E.1996-97, 97-98, 98-99, All Dated 23.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2009.These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By Common Order As The Issue Involved Is Same. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal Number 1680/Pune/2019 Ay 1996-97 As Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That The Notice

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 80L