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)

Maritime Vanguard Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation) -3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5999/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5999/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Maritime Vanguard Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit (International C/O Srbc & Associates, Taxation)-3(2)(1) Vs. Llp, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Room No.1615, 16Th Floor, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Air India Building, Nariman Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcm3609F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M. P. Lohia (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S.144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short “The Act”) In Pursuance Of The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel – 3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Drp”] Dated 27.06.2019 Relevant To The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “General 1. Erred In Assessing Total Income At Rs39,66,00,300 As Against Returned Income Of Rs Nil; Taxability Under The Income Tax Act. 1961 ('Act) A.Y.2016-17

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Lohia (AR)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44BSection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

Ramesh Kabra, Kishangarh vs. ITO, Kishangarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 979/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharmavk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 979/Jp/2016 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cuke Shri Ramesh Kabra The Ito Vs. Prop: M/S.Ramesh Bartan Bhandar Ward- 1 Opp:Gopal Building, Kishangarh Ajmer Road,Madan Ganj, Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ajjpk 0077 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Satish Gupta, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By: Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/08/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Ramesh C. Sharma, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Ajmer Dated 09-08-2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12, In The Matter Of Penalty Of Rs.73,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1 This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal By Passing Ex-Parte Order Dated 13-04-2017. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed The Misc. Application For Recalling The Ex-Parte Order. The Tribunal Vide Its Order Dated 18-08-2017 Recalled Its Earlier Order Dated 13-04-2017 & The Registry Was Directed To Fix The Case Shri Ramesh Kabra Vs Ito, Ward-1, Kishangarh For Hearing Afresh Before The Regular Bench. Now This Appeal Is Again Put Up

For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Chanchal Meena, JCIT
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271cSection 274

Shri Arup Kumar Bhowmick, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Burdwan

Appeal is allowed

ITA 171/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Arup Kumar Bhowmick Income Tax Officer Ward- बनाम Nabadoi, Nr. Ramkrishna 1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, / School, Tikorhat, V/S. Kachari Road, Court Burdwan-713 102 Compound, Burdwan, Pin- [Pan No.Aefpb 3107 E] 713 101 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Shuvo Chakraborty, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-08-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03-08-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Burdwan’S Dated 03.12.2019, Passed In Case No.19/ Cit(A)/Bwn/Ito,Wd-1(1)/2017-18 Upholding Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of ₹3,21,026/- Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Shri Shuvo Chakraborty Representing Assessee & Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Senior Departmental Representative Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Identical Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities Action Imposing The Penalty In Issue Of ₹3,21,026/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. It Emerges From The Penalty Notice Dated 15.12.2016 That The Assessing Officer Did Not Specify As To Whether The Assessee Is

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274