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)

Gaurav Kumar Goenka, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3375/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3375/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Gaurav Kumar Goenka, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 14/3B, 3F-2, 1St Street, Income Tax, East Abhiramapuram, Mylapore, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai 600 004. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Ahrpk3539J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. & Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 19.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds: “1. The Cit (Appeals) Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Presumption Of Enhancement Of Income In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Act Without Assigning Proper Reasons & Justification & Further Ought To Have Appreciated That The Restriction Of The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Would Not Amount To Enhancement Within The Ambit Of Section 250 Of The Act. 2. The Cit (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That In Any Event The Levy Of 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

Kaveri Gas Power Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 767/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.767 & 1876/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Kaveri Gas Power Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 3, Ranganathan Garden, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(2), 15Th Main Road Extension, Anna Nagar, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 040. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aabck4793Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 07.04.2018 Relating To Quantum Addition & Order Dated 10.04.2018 Of Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Leading The Ground Raised By The Assessee Are That As Per The Profit & Loss Account Furnished By The Assessee Company At 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Kaveri Gas Power Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1876/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.767 & 1876/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Kaveri Gas Power Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 3, Ranganathan Garden, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(2), 15Th Main Road Extension, Anna Nagar, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 040. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aabck4793Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 07.04.2018 Relating To Quantum Addition & Order Dated 10.04.2018 Of Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Leading The Ground Raised By The Assessee Are That As Per The Profit & Loss Account Furnished By The Assessee Company At 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 271(1)(c)