Which cases are most cited on Section 271(1)(c)?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) — 2,590 citing judgments; CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158) — 2,228 citing judgments; Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (328 ITR 81) — 1,183 citing judgments; CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (73 Taxmann.com 248) — 953 citing judgments; Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11) — 812 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 271(1)(c)?

BharatTax indexes 25,141 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) is the decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(c), cited in 2,590 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.

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)

Gaytri Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Learned Authority & No Fact Had Been Concealed By The Assessee. 2. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Is It Justified By The Learned Authority To Levy Penalty, Whereby The Property Being Used For Residential Purpose Only. 3. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Is It Justified By The Learned Authority To Levy Penalty, Even If Assessee Is Not Required To Maintained Books Of Accounts As Per U/S 44Aa Read With Rule 6F Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Is It Justified By The Learned Authority To Levy Penalty, Whereby Mistake In Claiming Of Deduction Under Wrong Provision Of Law Was Bona-Fide Mistake.”

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Singh (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54Section 54F

Swarnaprova Dutta, L/H : Shri Ujjal Dutta, Birbhum vs. ITO, Ward - 3(1), Suri, Birbhum

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2212/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 2210 - 2212/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Swarnaprova Dutta.................................……………………………………………………….......Appellant L/H: Sri Ujjal Dutta Netaji Road, Bolpur, Birbhum – 731 204. [Pan: Aiipd 0957 H] Ito, Ward 3(1)Suri...................……………………………………………………….................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Suri, Birbhum – 731 101. Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri C.J. Singh, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2019 Order

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Swarnaprova Dutta, L/H : Shri Ujjal Dutta, Birbhum vs. ITO, Ward - 3(1), Suri, Birbhum

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2211/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Swarnaprova Dutta, L/H : Shri Ujjal Dutta, Birbhum vs. ITO, Ward - 3(1), Suri, Birbhum

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2210/KOL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Neel Kamal Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(2), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2350/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Neel Kamal Agarwal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Mr. M.L. Jain & Ward-35(2), Aayakar Associates, 9/12 Lal Bazar Bhawan, Poorva, Stret, Block-E, 4Th Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700001 E.M. Bypass, [Pan No.Acipa 1982 B] Kolaktata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28-02-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10 Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.09.2016 Passed In Case No.49/Cit(A)-10/W-35(2)/15-16/Kol, Involving Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Former Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Adding His Sundry Credits Of ₹1,10,17,324/- As Unexplained In The Course Of Assessment As Upheld In The Lower Appellate Discussion As Follows:- “05. Grounds No. 3 Relates To The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Adding Rs. 1,10,17,324/- Under Head 'Unexplained Credit-Sundry Creditor'. The Matter Has Been Dealt By The Ld. A.O As Under:

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Sri.Natesh Subramanya Jayaram, Madikeri vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Madikeri

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

ITA 592/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

Abb Industries Fze, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2101/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(It)A No.2101/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Abb Industries Fze, C/O Abb India Ltd., 21St Floor, World Trade Centre, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleswaram(West), Bengaluru-560 055. … Appellant Pan:Aajca 9766 H Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sampath Raghunathan, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bengaluru, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 28/09/2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

Nxp India Pvt. Ltd (Formerly Known As Freescale Semiconductor India Pvt. Ltd), Noida vs. ACIT, Circle- 18(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 5140/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2014-15 Nxp India Private Limited Asstt. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Freescale Income Tax Semiconductor India Private Circle-18(2) Limited) New Delhi. Vs. Plot No. 2 & 3, Sector 16A, Noida 201301 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92Section 92C

Lodhi Property Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1232/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Senior DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 6574/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: MS. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

Debashis Dutta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 22(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1399/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1399/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Debashis Dutta..................................…………………………………………………………………..Appellant 178/N. Parui Das Para Road, Sarsuna, Kolkata – 700 061. [Pan: Agtpd 3588 R] Ito, Ward – 22(2) Kolkata...................…………………………………………………………Respondent 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Bamboovilla, Kolkata – 700 014. Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri I. Jamir, Sr(Dr), Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 27, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 19, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2018 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 3,45,355/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. As Noted At The Outset, There Is A Delay Of 15 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of The Said Delay & Keeping In View The Reasons Given Therein, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 15 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. Even The Learned Dr Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. We Accordingly Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merit.

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Seikh Boni Israil, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 48(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1249/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1249/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Seikh Boni Israil..................................…………………………………………………………………Appellant Nabghara, Sankrail, Howrah – 711 322. [Pan: Ajfps 5882 C] Ito, Ward – 48(3) Kolkata...................………………………………………………………….Respondent 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances By: Shri P.K. Ray, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri I. Jamir, Sr(Dr), Jcit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 13, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 27, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 14, Kolkata Dated 27.02.2018 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 1,36,569/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. As Noted At The Outset, There Is A Delay Of 14 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of The Said Delay & Keeping In View The Reason Given Therein, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 14 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. Even The Learned Dr Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. We Accordingly Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merit.

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)