This compilation indexes twelve tribunal and High Court decisions spanning 2019 to 2026 in which Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 — the penalty provision for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income — was a central or co-issue. The rulings are drawn from multiple ITAT benches (Mumbai, Kolkata, Jaipur, Delhi, Ahmedabad, and Bangalore) as well as the Bombay High Court, covering a diverse range of assessment years, industries, and procedural postures. This index is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured starting point for locating relevant precedents on Section 271(1)(c) disputes.

Disclaimer: This page is a research index only. It is not legal or tax advice. Readers must verify each ruling against the full text of the judgment, check for any subsequent stays, appeals, or reversals, and consult a qualified professional before acting on any information contained herein.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals), or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to levy a penalty where, in the course of proceedings under the Act, the assessee is found to have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The penalty leviable under this provision is not less than the amount of tax sought to be evaded and may extend to three times that amount. The initiation and imposition of such penalty is governed procedurally by Section 274, which requires that the assessee be given an opportunity of being heard before a penalty order is passed. The provision operates independently of the tax assessment itself, and the quantum of penalty is linked to the tax sought to be evaded on account of the concealment or inaccuracy found.

The 12 rulings

1. M/S. Perq Advertising Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 17 April 2026
Sections engaged: 133(6), 143(3), 147, 21, 271(1), 271(1)(c), 43
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeals were preferred by the assessee challenging orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had confirmed penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The two appeals — ITA No. 76/MUM/2026 and ITA No. 75/MUM/2026, relating to Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 respectively — were heard together and disposed of by way of a common order by the Mumbai bench.

2. Sivana Realty Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 6 April 2026
Sections engaged: 148, 148A(d), 271(1)(c), 274, 31(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court impugning various assessment orders, demand notices, reassessment proceedings, and penalty proceedings initiated by the respondent under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of assessment years pertaining to the period prior to 19th July 2023. The petition noted that a Resolution Plan in respect of the petitioner had been approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code on that date, making the challenge to the pre-resolution tax proceedings a central issue before the court.

3. Winwood Marketing Private vs ITO, Ward 6(2), Kolkata

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Date: 5 February 2026
Sections engaged: 143(2), 143(3), 250, 271(1), 271(1)(c), 271A, 274
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal before the Kolkata bench (ITA No. 2196/Kol/2025) was directed against an order dated 09.09.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre passed under Section 250 of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13. Per the text preview, the assessee had filed a return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring a total income of Nil, and the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS with the stated reason being "large share premium received," following which a notice under Section 143(2) was issued.

4. Ramesh Chowdhury, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 31(4), Kolkata

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Date: 28 January 2026
Sections engaged: 143(2), 143(3), 250, 271(1), 271(1)(c), 271A, 274, 38
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 2123/Kol/2025) was directed against an order dated 22.07.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre passed under Section 250 of the Act for Assessment Year 2015-16. Per the text preview, the assessee is an individual who filed an original return of income declaring income of Rs. 8,68,870/- for AY 2015-16; the case was subsequently selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) was issued, with the assessment being completed under Section 143(3) of the Act after certain disallowances.

5. J C Antiques And Crafts, Jaipur vs DCIT Circle-7, Jaipur

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Date: 11 April 2023
Sections engaged: 133A, 139(1), 142(1), 143(2), 147, 148, 271(1), 271(1)(c), 274, 44A, 95
Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 416/JP/2022) arose from an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 30.09.2022 for Assessment Year 2013-14, which in turn arose from an order dated 07.07.2021 passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, as reflected in the final statement of the judgment: "In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed."

6. A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs Ccit- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 28 March 2023
Sections engaged: 132(4), 153A, 271(1), 271(1)(c), 274, 29, 65
Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded
Procedural / substantive ground: The captioned cross-appeals were filed at the instance of both the assessee and the revenue against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Delhi bench dismissed the revenue's appeal and declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order, which had deleted the penalty imposed on the assessee; the penalty action was deemed unsustainable per the outcome reasoning. The appeal filed in ITA No. 2631/DEL/2018 related to Assessment Year 2008-09, with additional ITA numbers covering Assessment Years 2009-10 through 2013-14.

7. Shri Vitthalbhai Gordhanbhai vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Date: 19 September 2019
Sections engaged: 132(4), 132A, 139, 143(3), 147, 148, 149, 151, 153(a), 153A, 153A(1), 153B
Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded
Procedural / substantive ground: Three appeals (ITA Nos. 526, 527, and 528/Ahd/2018) were filed by three different assessees against three separate orders of the CIT(A)-11, Ahmedabad, all for Assessment Year 2012-13. The Ahmedabad bench allowed all three appeals; the judgment explicitly states that the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos. 526, 527, and 528/Ahd/2018 are allowed.

8. M/S Google India Pvt. Ltd vs Addl.C.I.T.

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 6 September 2019
Sections engaged: 145, 195, 271(1), 271(1)(c), 274, 40(a), 9(1)(iv), 9(1)(vi)
Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded
Procedural / substantive ground: The penalty appeal (ITA No. 362(Bang)/2013) was filed by the assessee against an order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the CIT(A)-1, Bangalore for Assessment Year 2008-09, in which the CIT(A) had upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on disallowances and additions made by the Assessing Officer. The tribunal deleted the penalty, following the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in similar cases, and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.

9. M/S Samanthu Business Forms Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 4 September 2019
Sections engaged: 133A, 14, 143(3), 148, 250(6), 271(1), 271(1)(c), 274, 292B, 74
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 847/Bang/2019) was directed against an order dated 22.02.2019 of CIT(A)-11, Bangalore, for Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer dated 31.08.2015 imposing a penalty of Rs. 14,04,106/- on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Per the text preview, the assessee company, engaged in the business of manufacturing stationery products, had filed its return for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring income of Rs. 74,843/-, and subsequently filed a revised return declaring Nil income.

10. M/S Tata Power Solar Systems Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 21 August 2019
Sections engaged: 13, 143(3), 148, 17, 250, 271(1), 271(1)(c), 274(1), 292B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 3187/Bang/2018) was directed against an order dated 20.09.2018 of CIT(A)-7, Bangalore, for Assessment Year 2009-10, whereby the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer dated 30.10.2013 imposing penalty on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Per the text preview, the assessee company — engaged in the business of manufacture and sale, including exports, of Solar Cells, Photovoltaic Modules and Systems — had filed its return for Assessment Year 2009-10 on 30.09.2009, and the case was taken up for scrutiny.

11. M/S Rajesh Enterprises, Hubli vs Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Hubli

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 2 August 2019
Sections engaged: 142(1), 144, 148, 18, 271(1), 271(1)(c), 274, 292B, 40
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 16/Bang/2019) was directed against an order dated 25.10.2018 of the CIT(A), Hubli, for Assessment Year 2008-09, whereby the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer dated 26.03.2018 imposing a penalty of Rs. 4,79,920/- on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of its income. Per the text preview, the assessee firm was engaged in business as a retail trader in food articles, essence and colouring items, and no return of income was filed for Assessment Year 2008-09 within the specified date of 30.09.2008.

12. Sri Deepak S Hiremath, Hubbali vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 4 June 2019
Sections engaged: 11, 12, 132, 14, 143(3), 148, 153, 153A, 24, 27, 271(1), 271(1)(c)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: These five appeals (ITA Nos. 1268 to 1272/Bang/2018) by the assessee were directed against separate orders of the CIT(A), Hubballi, dated 22.08.2018, relating to Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13. In all five appeals, the assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s confirmation of penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Per the text preview, for Assessment Year 2008-09, the assessee had filed a return of income on 30.09.2008 declaring income of Rs. 1,73,000/-, and a search action was subsequently conducted under Section 132 of the Act.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

NFAC as intermediate appellate authority: In multiple recent cases (case_idx 1, 3, 4, and 5), the immediate order being challenged at the ITAT level was that of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had confirmed penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c). This reflects the structural shift introduced by the faceless appeal scheme, with the NFAC now regularly featuring as the first-tier appellate forum whose orders are taken to the ITAT.
Insolvency and reassessment intersection: Case 2 (Sivana Realty) raises a distinct procedural dimension in which Section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings coexist with a concluded Resolution Plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, with the Bombay High Court being approached by writ petition under Article 226. This signals an emerging interface between income-tax penalty proceedings and IBC resolution timelines.
Search and block assessment context: Cases 6, 7, and 12 involve Section 153A proceedings (assessments in the context of search and seizure under Section 132), with Section 271(1)(c) penalty being a consequential issue. The co-occurrence of Section 132(4) statements and Section 153A assessments as precursors to penalty disputes is a recurring fact pattern across these rulings.
Taxpayer success in substantively decided cases: Among the cases where an outcome is specified in the source data, all four resolved matters (cases 5, 6, 7, and 8) resulted in the taxpayer succeeding. While no generalisation about the broader legal position can be drawn from this sample alone, it reflects that penalty challenges under Section 271(1)(c) can succeed at the tribunal level across varied factual contexts — from search assessments to disallowances on TDS and transfer pricing-adjacent issues.
Section 274 as a co-cited procedural safeguard: Section 274, which governs the procedure for penalty initiation and mandates an opportunity of hearing, is cited alongside Section 271(1)(c) in a majority of these cases (cases 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11), indicating that procedural compliance with Section 274 is routinely raised as a ground of challenge in penalty appeals.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is structured as a first-pass research index. Each entry identifies the bench, date, sections engaged, and outcome direction as extracted from the source corpus, and provides a brief procedural or substantive note drawn strictly from the available text preview of the respective judgment. Researchers should treat these entries as locators — not substitutes for the full judgment text. Before relying on any ruling for a submission, opinion, or filing, the complete order must be retrieved from the official court portal or indiankanoon.org and read in its entirety.

Users are also advised to check whether any ruling listed here has been subsequently stayed, reversed on appeal, or distinguished by a coordinate or higher bench. Tax tribunal and High Court decisions in India frequently travel through multiple rounds of litigation, and an ITAT ruling in favour of the taxpayer may have been reversed by a High Court, or vice versa. Similarly, CBDT circulars or instructions issued after the date of the ruling may affect the applicability of the legal position to future assessments.

Finally, this index covers proceedings where Section 271(1)(c) was cited as a section engaged. It does not represent an exhaustive survey of all Section 271(1)(c) decisions from the benches or periods covered, and the inclusion of a case should not be read as an endorsement of, or commentary on, the correctness of the decision. Researchers working on specific assessment years, industries, or factual patterns should supplement this index with targeted searches on court portals and legal research platforms.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 271(1)(c) Penalty: 12 ITAT and HC Rulings Compiled (2019–2026)