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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Cummins India Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 574/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: S/Shri Arvind Sonde and Ketan Ved
Section 143(3)

Cummins India Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 556/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: S/Shri Arvind Sonde and Ketan Ved
Section 143(3)

Sunil C. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 59/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.59/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Mr. Sunil C. Shah, Ito-Wd 21(3)(2) A/402, Odessy-1 C-11, Pratyaksha Kar Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, Bandra Hiranandani Garden, Powai- Mumbai-400076. Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfps0623M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan L. Vajani Revenue By: Shri V. Justin & Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.10.2013 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Erred In Disallowing The Commission Paid Of Rs.11,40,008/- & It'S Reasonableness To Various Parties On Sales & Making Charges. The Ld. A.O Has Not Appreciated The Commission Paid Is Vital For

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin & Ms. Pooja
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

Zee Bangles, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 494/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.494/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Zee Bangles बिधम/ Ito Ward 18(3)(5) 3Rd Floor Earnest House 148, L.K. Mkt, Zaveri Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai- Bazar, Mumbai-400002. 400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafz3532C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V.Vidhyadhar (Sr.Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 02.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. In The Facts & Circumstances & In Law, The Impugned Assessment Order Is Patently Illegal Passed In Violation Of Provisions Of Section 143(2), Non-Compliance Of Mandate Given By Hon. Sc [259 Itr 10 Pg. & Non-Compliance Of Principle Of Natural Justice & Thus Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri V.Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234CSection 27lSection 69C

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Laxmichand D. Rohira, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1178/MUM/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1178 To 1184/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08) Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. Co. Nos. 250 To 256/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. Nos.1183, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181 1182 & 1184/M/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07& 2007-08) बिधम/ Shri Lakhmichand D. Dy. Cit Cc-3(4) Central Rohira, 2301, Dheeraj Heigh Range-3 Vs. Gaurav, New Link Rd, Room No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Andheri (W), Mumbai- Air India Bldg, Nariman 400053. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adnpr6420M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2018

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (DR)
Section 132