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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Honeywell Automation India Limited, Pune

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

ITA 2529/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaled.C.I.T.Circle-1(1), Honeywell Automation India Pmt Bldg. Limited, Shankarsheth Road., Vs. 56 &57, Hadapsar Industrial Swargate, Pune-411037, Area, Hadaspar, Pune-411013, Maharashtra. Maharashtra Pan : Aaact3904F (अपीलार्/Appellant) (प् र्/Respondent) Co No.28/Pun/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2529/Pun/2025) Honeywell Automation India D.C.I.T.Circle-1(1), Limited, Pmt Bldg. 56 &57, Hadapsar Industrial Vs. Shankarsheth Road., Area, Hadaspar, Pune-411013, Swargate, Pune-411037, Maharashtra Maharashtra. Pan : Aaact3904F Cross Objector Appellant In The Appeal Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule (Virtual).Ar Revenue By Shri.Prakash L Pathade, Cit-Dr & Smt.Chandrika .R,. Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.04.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2026 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Nfac Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 271(1(C) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied U/Sec 271(1)(C)Of The Act By The Assessing Officer. & The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection Challenging The Validity Of Initiation Of Penalty U/ Sec 271(1) ( C) Of The Act. Honeywell Automation India Limited.

Shivbhumi Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountantmember & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicialmember Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shivbhumi Traders Pvt. Ltd...……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 2E, Cornfield Road, Kol-700019. [Pan: Aaocs1697L] Vs. Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Ghosal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr,Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :April 23, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order :April 28 , 2026 Order Perpradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.11.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011– 12. 2. After Hearing The Rival Contentions, We Find That The Quantum Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Restored To The File Of The Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 21.04.2025 In Ita No.771/Kol/2023 & The Copy Of The Order Is Available At Page 62 Of The Paper-Book. Considering The Same, The Consequential Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Involved In The Present Appeal Is Deleted & The Appeal Is Also Restored To The File Of The Assessing Officer With A Liberty To The Assessing Officer To Initiate Penalty Proceedings As He Deems Fit. 3. In The Result, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)