Which cases are most cited on Section 275(1)(a)?

CIT v. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. (341 ITR 593) — 33 citing judgments; COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. ODEON BUILDERS P. LTD. (393 ITR 27) — 14 citing judgments; Parkinson Electrical Corprn v. ITO (84 Taxmann 82) — 9 citing judgments; Bata India Ltd. v. DCIT (11 Taxmann.com 453) — 5 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 275(1)(a)?

BharatTax indexes 114 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 275(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. (341 ITR 593) is the decision most relied on for Section 275(1)(a), cited in 33 judgments. A mandatory change in the method of accounting, if bonafide, allows for deductions based on the changed method when computing business income. The method of accounting for lease followed by an assessee, based on ICAI guidelines, was accepted.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.472

Section 275(1)(a) falls under section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 472 (Bar of limitation for imposing penalties) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 472 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 275(1)(a) is CIT v. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. (341 ITR 593), cited in 33 of the 114 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 275(1)(a)

CIT v. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd.

341 ITR 593 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

A mandatory change in the method of accounting, if bonafide, allows for deductions based on the changed method when computing business income. The method of accounting for lease followed by an assessee, based on ICAI guidelines, was accepted.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. ODEON BUILDERS P. LTD.

393 ITR 27 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

The limitation period for filing an appeal against an ITAT order commences from the date of receipt of the order by any CIT, not necessarily the 'concerned jurisdictional CIT'. Alternatively, the date of pronouncement of the order can be taken as the date of service.

Parkinson Electrical Corprn v. ITO

84 Taxmann 82 · 1996 · High Court

citing judgments

Bata India Ltd. v. DCIT

11 Taxmann.com 453 · Reported

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 275(1)(a)

I.Ashok Kumar, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Coimbatore

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

ITA 3371/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3371/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri I. Ashok Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, 658, P.N. Palayam Road, V. Corporate Ward – 4, Puliyakulam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 045. Pan : Ahqpa 2689 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT

Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)

M/S. Perfect Spray Pac Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed and consequently penalty order stands quashed

ITA 1922/DEL/2014[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2016AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Aruna Mittal, CA and Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR

Section 143Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 272ASection 275(1)(a)

Sh. Chander Pal Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantchander Pal Aggarwal Vs Ito 3611, Raja Park, Shakur Basti, Ward 25(2) Rani Bagh, Delhi. New Delhi. Adnpa1455D

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275(1)(a)Section 68

ITO, Ward-7(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Kedia Power Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1516/KOL/2008[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:1999-00

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(a)Section 275(1)(c)

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. All India Association of Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 6368/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6368/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Dy. Cit, Circle 3(1), All India Association Of Industries बनाम/ Room No. 607, Aayakar Bhavan, New Excelsior Building, 6Th Floor, A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca 8822 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. P. Rastogi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. S. Parikh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.5.2016 Date Of Hearing Date Of Order : 20.5.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Cancellation Of The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter), Levied In The Sum Of Rs.10,14,650/- By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Vide His Order Dated 30.3.2009 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2003-04, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Per His Order Dated 30.5.2011. 2.1 The Revenue’S Appeal Raises In Effect Three Grounds. While The First Two Grounds Relate To The Issue On Merits, The Third Ground, Raised By Way Of An Additional Ground Subsequently (Vide Letter Dated 23.11.2012), Raises A Legal Issue, I.E., With Regard To The Time Limitation. The Issue Being Legal, With The Relevant Facts On Record, The Said Ground Was Accordingly Admitted. This, In Fact, We Observe To Be The Only

For Appellant: Shri R. P. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri H. S. Parikh

Section 246Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)Section 275(1)(a)