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)

Income Tax Officer, Nashik vs. M/S. Manu Re-Rolling Mill Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 561/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.558 & 561/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(4), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Nashik. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Manu Re-Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd., C/O. Pritesh Shah, G-3, Ground Floor, Baroda Street, Masjid (E), Mumbai-400009. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aabcm8870C Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu Assessee By : None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Revenue. Both The Appeals Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Nashik Dated 06.12.2016 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Common, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue, There Is None To Represent The Assessee Despite The Service Of Notice By The Itat. Therefore, Both The Appeals Are Being Decided On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr For The Revenue. 3. Since The Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, The Appeal In Ita No.558/Pun/2017 For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu
Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Officer, Nashik vs. M/S. Manu Re-Rolling Mill Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 558/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.558 & 561/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(4), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Nashik. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Manu Re-Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd., C/O. Pritesh Shah, G-3, Ground Floor, Baroda Street, Masjid (E), Mumbai-400009. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aabcm8870C Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu Assessee By : None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Revenue. Both The Appeals Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Nashik Dated 06.12.2016 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2012-13 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Common, Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. 2. In Both The Appeals Of The Revenue, There Is None To Represent The Assessee Despite The Service Of Notice By The Itat. Therefore, Both The Appeals Are Being Decided On The Basis Of Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr For The Revenue. 3. Since The Issues Are Common In Both The Appeals, The Appeal In Ita No.558/Pun/2017 For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Taken As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu
Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Rajendra Gaikwad, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1027/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1027/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Rajendra Gaikwad, M/S. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Associates Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Riverside Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune-411001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aimpg7188F बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-8, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Thakkar Revenue By : Shri Vishwas Mandhe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-9, Pune Dated 13.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per The Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”), The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Erred In Confirming The Validity Of The Notice Under Section 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 Of The Act Issued By The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ld. Ao”). Just & Proper Relief Be Granted To The Appellant In This Respect. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per The Provisions & Scheme Of The Act, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Considering The Explanation & Legal

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mandhe
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)