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)

Shri Prashant Balasaheb Javalekar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.265/Srt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Prashant Balasaheb Javalekar, V The Income Tax Officer, B-102, G.I.D.C, Central Park, S. Ward-2(1)(3), Surat. Pandesara, Surat – 394 210. [Pan: Afjpj 8178 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By None. राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 27.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 27.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)” Dated 05.09.2017, Which In Turn Arises From The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Dated 29.03.2016 For A.Y. 2007-08. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Ii Surat Has Miserably Failed To Understand & Appreciate That The Order Imposing Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Is Time Barred Vide Proviso To Sec.275(1)(A). 2. The Learned Ao Has Grossly Erred In Imposing & The Learned Cit (Appeals) Ii Surat Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.213063/- U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, Ignoring The Fact Of Deletion By Cit (A) Of Entire Addition & Confirming @ 50% By Itat Purely On Estimates Only. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add To, Alter Or Amend Present Grounds Of Appeal.”

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69C

Shri Jayvadan Ramniklal Kapadia, Surat vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/AHD/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Apr 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.406/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2003-04 Jyotiben Jayvadan Kapadia & V The Deputy Commissioner Of Rupesh Jayvadan Kapadia, S. Income, Circle-3, Surat. L/H Of Jayvadan Ramniklal Kapaida, A/2, Aamrakunj Society, Nr.Pujara Hospital, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. [Pan: Achpk 3121 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 26.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)” Dated 24.12.2014 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2003-04. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming Penalty On Gift Received From The Different Persons Of Rs.9,07,224/-. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Considered The Fact That All The Donors Having Pan No. & Given Gift Declaration Also To Prove Their Willingness & Genuineness. 3. The Ld. Dcit & Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Taken Into Consideration That The Assessee Has Voluntarily Offered Gift As Additional Income To Buy Peace Of Mind, Avoid Harassment & Avoid Further Litigation & Subject To Non Levy Of Penalty.

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Shree Sai Developers, Dadra & Nagar Haveli vs. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-2, Surat

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn being settled

ITA 1393/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1392 & 1393/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shree Sai Developers, Vs The Assistant Avdhesh Mansion, Plot No.262/4/26- . Commissioner Of Income A, P.W.D.Road, Silvasa, Tax, Central Circle-2, Daman & Nagar Haveli. Surat. [Pan: Aamfs 7210 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Miss Hardika Vyas - Adv. राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singhla – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 26.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. These Two Appeals By Assessee, Out Of Which First Appeal (Ita No.1392/Ahd/2013 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)” Dated 19.03.2013 In Quantum Assessment & Second Appeal In Ita No.1393/Ahd/2013 Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Same Assessment Year I.E. 2006-07. 2. Both Appeals Came Up Hearing On 26Th April 2021. The Assessee Has Already Filed Application Dated 23.04.2021 Contending Therein That The Assessee Has Settled Dispute With The Department Under Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme–2020 & Had Already Received Form-3. The Assessee Filed Form-3, For Shree Sai Developers Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Surat. /

Section 271(1)(c)

Shree Sai Developers, Dadra & Nagar Haveli vs. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-2, Surat

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn being settled

ITA 1392/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.1392 & 1393/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shree Sai Developers, Vs The Assistant Avdhesh Mansion, Plot No.262/4/26- . Commissioner Of Income A, P.W.D.Road, Silvasa, Tax, Central Circle-2, Daman & Nagar Haveli. Surat. [Pan: Aamfs 7210 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Miss Hardika Vyas - Adv. राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singhla – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 26.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. These Two Appeals By Assessee, Out Of Which First Appeal (Ita No.1392/Ahd/2013 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)” Dated 19.03.2013 In Quantum Assessment & Second Appeal In Ita No.1393/Ahd/2013 Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Same Assessment Year I.E. 2006-07. 2. Both Appeals Came Up Hearing On 26Th April 2021. The Assessee Has Already Filed Application Dated 23.04.2021 Contending Therein That The Assessee Has Settled Dispute With The Department Under Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme–2020 & Had Already Received Form-3. The Assessee Filed Form-3, For Shree Sai Developers Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Surat. /

Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT-27(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhanu Construction, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 5742/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5742/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Bhanu Construction Tax, Circle- 27(1), Room No. 408, Unit No.107, Hill View 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Industrial Estate, Off: Lbs फनाभ/ Railway Station Complex, Vashi Marg, Amrut Nagar, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Ghatkopar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 086 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabfb8940R अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Tharian Oommen, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Devendra Jain, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-25, Mumbai, [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-25/It-20 & 21/2018-19 Dated 10.06.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer (In Short Ito/ Ao), M/S Bhanu Construction; Ay 11-12 Ward-22(1)(1), Mumbai For The A.Y. 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 28.03.2014 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’). The Penalty Under Dispute Was Levied By Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Mumbai Vide Order Dated 29.03.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Tharian Oommen, DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)