Follow Us:

section 271(1)(c)

Latest Articles


No Penalty for Voluntary Correction of Bona fide computational mistakes During Assessment 

Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when errors are voluntarily corrected during assessment. ...

March 20, 2026 417 Views 0 comment Print

Penalties and Prosecutions Under Income tax Act, 1961

Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...

October 28, 2025 529158 Views 4 comments Print

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Not Sustainable for Bona Fide 54F Claim Delayed by Builder Default: ITAT Delhi

Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unsustainable as 54F exemption failed due to builder delay, not taxpayer’s fault. Full dis...

July 16, 2025 1092 Views 0 comment Print

Invalid Income-tax Section 271(1)(c) Penalty: Non-Specific Charge Legal Analysis

Income Tax : Understand why an income-tax penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the charge isn't specified as concealment or inaccurate...

June 7, 2025 3015 Views 0 comment Print

Penalty Proceedings Deferred must be During Quantum Appeal: Legal Framework & Judicial Insights

Income Tax : Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and...

June 6, 2025 4740 Views 0 comment Print


Latest News


Easwar Committee Recommends Non-Levy Of Penalty in certain circumstances

Income Tax : The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of inc...

January 21, 2016 1123 Views 0 comment Print


Latest Judiciary


ITAT Deletes Penalty as Both Limbs of Section 271(1)(c) Invoked Together

Income Tax : The Tribunal held that a penalty notice lacking clarity on whether it relates to concealment or inaccurate particulars is invalid....

April 21, 2026 120 Views 0 comment Print

Penalty Deleted as AO Failed to Specify Exact Section 271(1)(c) Charge: Delhi HC

Income Tax : The case addressed ambiguity in penalty proceedings where the specific charge was not identified. The Court upheld deletion of pen...

April 18, 2026 129 Views 0 comment Print

Penalty Quashed as Notice Failed to Specify Exact Section 271(1)(c) Charge: ITAT Raipur

Income Tax : The case involved an ambiguous penalty notice that did not clarify whether the charge was concealment or inaccurate particulars. T...

April 18, 2026 123 Views 0 comment Print

No Penalty on Estimated Bogus Purchases: ITAT Deletes U/s 271(1)(c) Levy

Income Tax : The case involved penalty on disallowance of purchases treated as non-genuine and estimated at 12.5%. Tribunal ruled that estimate...

April 18, 2026 87 Views 0 comment Print

Commission Disallowance Remanded – 133(6) Non-Response Not Sufficient; Ad-hoc Expenses Cut to 10%

Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai remanded ₹95.81 lakh commission disallowance, holding that non-response to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justi...

April 18, 2026 63 Views 0 comment Print


Latest Notifications


Immunity under Section 270AA of Income-tax Act, 1961- CBDT Clarifies

Income Tax : Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) inter alia provides that w.e.f. 1 st April, 2017, the Assessing Officer, on an...

August 16, 2018 11970 Views 0 comment Print


No section 271(1)(c) Penalty for mere claim of expense under different income head

July 5, 2020 2349 Views 0 comment Print

The issue under consideration is whether the AO is correct in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) merely because the assessee claimed expenditure under a different head of income?

Section 271(1)(c) Notice should clearly specify charge of Penalty

June 24, 2020 2292 Views 1 comment Print

ITO Vs Shri Bimal Talukdar (ITAT Guwahati) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) initiated by the AO sustain Under Income Tax Law? In the present case, the ITAT earlier had allowed the appeal of the assessee and cancelled the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by taking note of […]

Penalty cannot be levied for making a claim which may be erroneous or wrong

June 24, 2020 5100 Views 0 comment Print

The issue under consideration is whether the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in law for for making a claim which may be erroneous or wrong ?

If section 69 not invoked by AO in Order u/s 143(3) then section 115BBE can’t invoked for rectification u/s 154

June 9, 2020 2949 Views 0 comment Print

whether CIT(A) is justified in quashing the action of the AO u/s 154 of the Act in applying provision of section 115BBE of the IT Act on undisclosed investment surrendered during the course of survey proceedings?

No Section 271AAB Penalty on Income voluntarily admitted during Search

June 6, 2020 2397 Views 0 comment Print

The issue under consideration is whether the penalty levied u/s 271AAB of the Act is justified on Income voluntarily admitted during Search by Appellant?

Addition on estimate basis – Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed

June 2, 2020 1701 Views 0 comment Print

It is a settled principle of law that where addition to assessee’s income is made on estimate basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed.

No penalty for mere upheld of additions by CIT (A)

May 31, 2020 1146 Views 0 comment Print

PCIT Vs Junjab National Bank (Delhi High Court)  Merely because additions made by the Assessing Officer have been partially upheld by the CIT (A), would not confer the ground to initiate proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of imposition of penalty, unless it is found that there is concealment of material facts, or furnishing […]

Penalties imposable in Income Tax Search Cases

May 2, 2020 18099 Views 0 comment Print

Understand the penalties imposable in income tax search cases. Learn about the different types of penalties and their implications for tax compliance.

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty leviable as revised return filed only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2)/142(1)

April 7, 2020 6789 Views 0 comment Print

Since assessee had no intention to make a full and true disclosure of its income as it would not have filed a revised return of income showing higher income before issuance of the notice 143(2)/142(1) by AO, therefore, AO  rightly held that assessee had deliberately and consciously failed to furnish full and true particulars of income and attempted to conceal income and levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was confirmed.

No penalty for bonafide different perspective in ALP calculation

March 9, 2020 762 Views 0 comment Print

The assessee is one of the group companies of China based TIENS Group of Companies. The business of the assessee, is Trading/Distribution of Food Supplements and Health Care Equipments. The products dealt with by the Company are basically products manufactured at China or other places by Group concerns. Another Group Entity Tianjin Tianshi Biological Development Company Limited, incorporated at China has established a Foreign Branch Office in India.

Search Post by Date
April 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930