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

M.P.Recycling Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4205/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M. P. Recycling Company Private Asst. Cit, Central Circle 4(2)(1) Mumbai-400 020 Limited Vs. 51-53/A, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aadcm 3153 A (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None : Shri R. R. Makwana Respondent By : 17.10.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. As There Was No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee, We Hereby Dispose Of This Appeal By Hearing The Learned Departmental Representative ('Ld.Dr' For Short) & On Perusal Of The Materials Available On Record. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) At The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer) In Levying The Impugned Penalty Of Rs 2,65,12,070 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 17.10.2024
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274