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)

Dehradun Club Ltd, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4753/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 4753/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Dehradun Club Ltd., Vs Dcit, 15, New Survey Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun, Uttarakhand Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd8246L Assessee By : Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement:07.02.2019 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Dehradun Dated 17.04.2018. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty Of Rs.4,05,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Mutual Benefit Club Registered As A Company Limited By Guarantee U/S 25 Of The Companies Act, 1956. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Reopened The Assessment By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act & In The Assessment Framed Thereafter U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Made Addition To The Income Of The Assessee Of Rs.9,69,937/- Under The Head Interest Income On Fdr & Rs.2,28,000/- Under The Head Messing Commission. 2 Dehradun Club Ltd. 4. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act & Levied Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Of Rs.4,03,225/-.

For Appellant: Sh. V. Raja Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 25Section 271(1)(c)

Ibm Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6471/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 6471/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ibm Daksh Business Process Services Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Birla Tower, 1St Floor, 25 Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D Assessee By : Sh. G. C. Srivastava, Adv., Sh. Suvinay Kr. Dash, Adv. & Sh. Parichay Solanki, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing :24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Drp-I, New Delhi Dated 03.09.2012 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground No. 1 Of The Appeal Of The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. Assessment & Reference To Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law A) The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax — 11(1) [‘Dcit” Or 'Ao’ / Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Tpo-I (2)], New Delhi ['Acit' Or Tpo'] Erred In Law & On Facts In Making Addition Of Inr 314,525,713 To The Total Income Of The Appellant On 2 Ibm Daksh Business Process Services India Pvt. Ltd. Account Of Adjustment To The Arm'S Length Price With Respect To Information Technology (‘It’) Enabled Services Of The Appellant With Its Associated Enterprises Other Than Ibm World Trade Corporation (‘Ibm Wtc’). B) The Ao/Tpo Erred In Law & On Facts As He Failed To Establish That The Appellant Shifted Profits Outside India.” 3. This Ground Of Appeal Is General In Nature & Hence Does Not Require Separate Adjudication By Us.

For Appellant: Sh. G. C. Srivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 920(2)