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)

Pankaj Dua, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 517/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblepankaj Dua Vs Acit 10/45, Geeta Colony, Circle 36(1) New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Akppd9635F Appellant Respondent Appellant/ Assessee By Sh. Ashish, Ca Respondent/ Revenue By Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2018 Order Per Suchitra Kamble, Jm This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.11.2014 Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-Xxvii, New Delhi For Ay 2005-06. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Both The Lower Authorities I.E. Ao & Cit (A), Have Erred In Imposition Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & As Such The Order Impugned Herein Under May Kindly Be Held As Bad In Law & The Penalty Imposed Of Rs. 7,86,046/- May Kindly Be Deleted. 2. That Without Prejudice, The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C ) Has Been Imposed On Presumptive Basis Without Any Satisfaction Or Without There Being Any Concealment Of Income Or Filing Of Inaccurate Particulars. The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C ) Of Rs. 7,86,046/- May Thus Be Deleted. 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ao Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Submissions Submitted During The Course Of Penalty Proceedings & Also In Not Stating As To The How & To What Extent The Submissions Of The Assessee Are Not Considered. As Such Penalty Of Rs. 7,86,046/- U/S 271(1)(C ) Of The Act May Kindly Be Deleted.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)