Which cases are most cited on Section 271F?

State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty (60 ITR 239) — 78 citing judgments; CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (275 ITR 113) — 38 citing judgments; 1) Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. Dy. CIT (174 Taxmann.com 273) — 23 citing judgments; Revenue. I. CIT v. Satish Medical Agencies (292 ITR 163) — 17 citing judgments; 14 (Delhi) 2) Lalit Gulati v. Asstt. CIT (305 Taxmann 11) — 11 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 271F?

BharatTax indexes 927 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 271F of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 271F of the Income Tax Act?

State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty (60 ITR 239) is the decision most relied on for Section 271F, cited in 78 judgments. A best judgment assessment must be based on wisdom, truth, and legal principles, not arbitrary caprice. While it involves estimation and guesswork, this must have a reasonable nexus to available material and the case's circumstances.

The decision most relied on for Section 271F is State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty (60 ITR 239), cited in 78 of the 927 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271F

State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty

60 ITR 239 · 1966 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A best judgment assessment must be based on wisdom, truth, and legal principles, not arbitrary caprice. While it involves estimation and guesswork, this must have a reasonable nexus to available material and the case's circumstances.

CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal

275 ITR 113 · 2005 · High Court

citing judgments

The omission by an Income Tax Officer to initiate penalty proceedings during the assessment, when there is an observation of under-reporting or mis-reporting of income, renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, granting the Commissioner jurisdiction to revise such an order under Section 263.

1) Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. Dy. CIT

174 Taxmann.com 273 · 2025 · High Court

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 after April 1, 2021, are barred by limitation and invalid, as per the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2020.

Revenue. I. CIT v. Satish Medical Agencies

292 ITR 163 · 2007 · High Court

citing judgments

A conscious act by the assessee to hide information from the department is a key factor in upholding revenue assessments and penalties.

14 (Delhi) 2) Lalit Gulati v. Asstt. CIT

305 Taxmann 11 · High Court

citing judgments

Gordhanbhai Devjibhai Kapadia v. ITO

177 Taxmann.com 714 · 2025 · High Court

citing judgments

A notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act issued after March 31, 2021, is invalid if it relies on the extended time limit provided by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, for assessment years prior to 2021-22.

Manubhai A. Sheth v. N. D. Nirgudkar, Second ITO

128 ITR 87 · 1981 · High Court

citing judgments

S.M.I.L.E. Micro Finance Ltd. v. ACIT

479 ITR 172 · 2025 · High Court

citing judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kanubhai Muljibhai Patel

306 ITR 179 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

Jayanthi Shri v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-I, Coimbatore

75 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 271F

Sankarlingam Sankar Through His Legal Heir Ganesh Shankar, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 708/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aadesh Kumar AgrariFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273BSection 274

Sankarlingam Sankar Through His Legal Heir Ganesh Shankar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 706/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Aadesh Kumar AgrariFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 273BSection 274

Akbar Virani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 468/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Akbar Virani, Vs. The Income Tax Oficer, Ward – 4(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aegpv9662P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vemulapati Sridhar, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vemulapati Sridhar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69

Hukam Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 1656/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyahukum Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 43 (1), S/O Shri Sukh Lal, New Delhi. H.No.24, Vpo Khaira, Sought West Delhi, Najafgarh, Delhi – 110 043. (Pan : Bkeps0758N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Order : 18.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 13.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi {“Cit(A)''} Has Failed To Appreciate That Initiation Of Reassessment Proceedings In The Present Case Is Bad In Law On The Ground That Ld. Ao Did Not Have Reasons To Believe That Any Income Has Escaped To Be Assessed In The Hands Of The Assessee. Though The Assessee Had Filed The Return In Response To Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"), But No Reasons Were Either Provided To The Assessee Nor Extracted In The Assessment Order. There Is No Valid Approval Brought On Record

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Parin Engineers, Mumbai vs. Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1725/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271F

Mr. Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 870/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Abhishek Murthy R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(b)

Mr. Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 635/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Abhishek Murthy R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(b)

Mr. Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1129/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Abhishek Murthy R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(b)

Mr. Ravindra Karadahalli Vivek, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1128/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Abhishek Murthy R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(b)

Seema Heera, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) (It) - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 274Section 54

ACIT Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Varun Resources Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2012/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 33(5)

Aishani Consultants Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3911/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Smt Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

The Immaculate Heart of Mary'S Society, Madurai vs. ITO Exemptions, Madurai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 970/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, The Immaculate Heart Of V. Exemptions Ward, Mary’S Society, Madurai. Arul Malar Convent, No.1, K.K. Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. [Pan:Aaatt-7531-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

The Immaculate Heart of Mary'S Society, Madurai vs. ITO Exemptions, Madurai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 969/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

The Immaculate Heart of Mary'S Society, Madurai vs. ITO Exemptions, Madurai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 968/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 274Section 28Section 69A

Avnish Kumar Suraj Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-36(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 1238/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumar[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Avnish Kumar Suraj Kumar Jain, Vs Ito, C-6/1., Rana Pratap Bagh, Ward-36(5), New Delhi-110007. New Delhi. Pan-Aekpj2063C Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2024

Section 144Section 148Section 44A

Raj Sarathy Jagdish, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3 (2), Thane

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

ITA 3850/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalraj Sarathy Jagdish C/001, Ignis Building Lodha Splendora, Ghodbunder Road, Thane 400 607 Pan: Agppj8217K ..... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 3(2)/Nfac Ashar It Park, Wagle Estate Thane- 400 604 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Ld. DR

Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 69ASection 69C

Sonal Sunil Thakrar, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 744/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year :2012-13 Mrs. Sonal Sunil Thakkar, B-104, Mrud Kishore Bldg., Behind Gokul Shopping Center, Datta Pada Road, Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Ahhpt-4628-D ---- Appellant Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Ito 42(1)(5), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051 --- Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tejas Shah Revenue By : Shri Surendra Meena Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Tejas ShahFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

Vikalp Goutam Pawar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-33(1)(7), Mumbai

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

ITA 1355/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Bhagwan Das, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 308/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year 2012-13 Bhagwan Das, Vs. Ito-3(2), C/O Sanjay Saxena, 12, Hardoi Pratap Enclave Colony, Bisrat G.T.Road, Shahjahanpur Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aavpd 7007M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271F