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)

Comverse Network Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1103/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi11 May 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Comverse Network Systems India Vs Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1), Dlf Building No.14, Tower-D, Gurgaon. 18Th Floor, Sector 24 & 25A, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. Pan: Aabcc3425B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3)/144C Of The It Act, Relating To The A.Y. 2007-08. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Service Of Notice. It Was Seen From The Order Sheet Entry That On Earlier Occasions Also No One Was Appearing For The Assessee. Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Decided On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.10.2007 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.4,04,26,450/- Which Was Subsequently Revised On 31.03.2010 Claiming A Loss Of Rs.3,54,66,920/-. Since The Assessee Had Entered Into Certain International Transactions, The Ao Referred The Matter To The Tpo For Determination Of Alp Of The International Transactions Entered Into By The Assessee. The Tpo, Vide Order Dated 19Th January, 2016, Suggested An Upward Adjustment Of Rs.4,69,71,391/-. Accordingly, The Ao Passed The Order Making The Addition Of Rs.4,69,71,391/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. Society for Indian Automobile Manufacturers, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6083/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, V.P & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, A.M. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1284/Del/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" M/S. Society For Indian Automobile Manufacturers, Core-4B, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. ............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaats4258A Vs The Ito (Exemption), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Trust Ward-Ii, New Delhi. Vs आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2861/Del/2011 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" The Dcit(Exemption), Circle-2(1), Room No.2408, 24Th Floor, E-2 Block, Dr.S.P.Mukherjee Civic Centre, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi-110002. Vs M/S. Society For Indian Automobile Manufacturers, Core-4B, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Pan-Aaats4258A अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. & Sh. Kunal Kokhale, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Sh. Abhisek Kumar, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Abhisek Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15