Section 271 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 271 is Premier Breweries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (372 ITR 180), cited in 52 of the 211 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271

Premier Breweries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
372 ITR 180 · 2015 · Supreme Court
52
citing judgments

Whether an assessee has shown 'reasonable cause' under Section 273B, particularly in the context of penalties under Section 271D for violations of Section 269SS, is a question of law involving a legal inference from primary facts. Penalties under Section 271D are not leviable if reasonable cause is established, even for journal entries, provided transactions are genuine and bona fide.

CIT v. Ramaniyam Homes Pvt. Ltd.
384 ITR 530 · 2016 · High Court
48
citing judgments

Benefits received by a company from its business operations, such as waived loans not used for capital assets, are taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

CIT v. Rampur Engg
309 ITR 143 · 2009 · High Court
35
citing judgments

The power to impose penalty under section 271 of the Income-tax Act depends on the Assessing Officer's satisfaction, which must be recorded during the proceedings. If the officer is not satisfied and has not recorded this satisfaction, the penalty cannot be exercised.

Mayawati v. CIT
321 ITR 349 · 2010 · High Court
20
citing judgments

Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, only mandates the issuance of a notice within the prescribed period and does not require the notice to be served on the assessee within that same period.

ITO vs. Shakti Foundation., (2016) 48 CCH 0065 (Jaipur) 10. 11. Sunflower Builders (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
61 ITD 227 · 1997 · ITAT
12
citing judgments
CIT v. Raj Trading Co.
217 ITR 208 · 1996 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income relates to particulars that have been provided by the assessee, while concealment of income means the income has not been declared at all. The phrase 'inaccurate particulars' is broader and can include inaccuracies that lead to under-declaration or escapement of income.

368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT v. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.
159 Taxmann.com 7 · 2024 · Supreme Court
9
citing judgments
Taxman 488 (SC) 5. Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, 82 ITR 26, (SC) 6. Brij Mohan v. CIT
226 ITR 442 · 1997 · Supreme Court
9
citing judgments
CIT v. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 395 · 2013 · High Court
9
citing judgments
Prahlad Bhattacharya v. CIT
386 ITR 708 · High Court
8
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 271

Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. Dct, Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 211/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 1-59, Mig, Word Bank Barra, Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur Kanpur-208027 Pan:Aaccw7342L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-1, Kanpur Passed Under Section 119 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 5.12.2024 Refusing To Condone The Delay In Filing The Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2022-23 With The Claimed Refund Of Rs. 10,000/-. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. That Due To Mistake Of Counsel, The Itr For The Ay 2022-23 Could Not Be Filed Of The Assessee Company, Whereas The Certificate Of The Counsel Was Also Filed, But Ignore The Same & Rejected The Petition Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act, Which Action Of The Pr. Cit Is Contrary To Fact & Be Quashed. 02. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S.119 Of The Income Tax Act Reject The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act Is Not Lawful, Bad In Law, Be Quashed. 03. That The Pr. Cit As Well As Cpc Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Arbitrarily Rejecting The Petition Of The Assessee Company To Rectify The Return Of Income, Which Should Ought To Have Done. A.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd. 04. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S 119 Dated 05.12.2024 Is Erroneous, Misconceived, Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Modified.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 10Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 143Section 144BSection 147Section 153A