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)

Smt. Neha Gopal Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 417/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 417/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Smt. Neha Gopal Sharma बिधम/ Ito-29(2)(4) Room No.205, C-10, 2Nd 1501, B Wing, Tower-1, Vs. Vikas Paradise, Lbs Marg, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mulund (W), Mumbai- Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. 400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aobps8089J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Ekta Dodhia Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.10.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Learned Cit(A)-40 Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Learned Assessing Officer Without Appreciating The Fact Of The Case In The Right Perspective.

For Appellant: Ms. Ekta DodhiaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 27Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 68

Subhash Chandra Reddy, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 3120/CHNY/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3119 & 3120/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Subhash Chandra Reddy The Assistant Commissioner Of Mother & Representative Assessee By Vs. Income Tax, Smt. K. Subha Pradha, C/O. S. Non Corporate Circle 1, Sendamarai Kannan, Advocate, 104, Chennai 600 034. 22Nd Street, Ashtalakshmi Nagar Third Main, Alapakkam, Chennai 600 116. [Pan:Akypk7909C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sendamarai Kannan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Both Dated 27.09.2019 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. I.T.A. No. 3119/Chny/2019 [Ay: 2005-06] 2. When This Appeal Is Taken Up For Hearing, The Bench Has Observed That The Assessee Has Not Appeared Before The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri S. Sendamarai Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Subhash Chandra Reddy, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 3119/CHNY/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3119 & 3120/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Subhash Chandra Reddy The Assistant Commissioner Of Mother & Representative Assessee By Vs. Income Tax, Smt. K. Subha Pradha, C/O. S. Non Corporate Circle 1, Sendamarai Kannan, Advocate, 104, Chennai 600 034. 22Nd Street, Ashtalakshmi Nagar Third Main, Alapakkam, Chennai 600 116. [Pan:Akypk7909C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sendamarai Kannan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Both Dated 27.09.2019 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. I.T.A. No. 3119/Chny/2019 [Ay: 2005-06] 2. When This Appeal Is Taken Up For Hearing, The Bench Has Observed That The Assessee Has Not Appeared Before The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri S. Sendamarai Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)