“under-reporting of income”

PenaltySection 270ASection 270A402 judgments

The decision most relied on for under-reporting of income is CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (275 ITR 113), cited in 38 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on under-reporting of income

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.

Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors.

443 ITR 186 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be imposed if the Assessing Officer fails to specify which clause under Section 270A(9) applies and fails to show cause to the assessee accordingly. Strict adherence to the conditions of Section 270A is mandatory for its applicability.

Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC

152 Taxmann.com 382 · 2023 · ITAT

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting or mis-reporting of income cannot be sustained if additions are made under Section 56(2)(x) and the penalty notice fails to specify the limb under which proceedings are initiated.

Company Limited 432 ITR 84 (Del); 4. Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT

145 Taxmann.com 665 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Immunity from penalty under Section 270AA may be granted if the assessment order is silent on how the ingredients of Section 270A(9) are satisfied, and the penalty notice fails to specify whether the penalty is for 'under-reporting' or 'misreporting' of income.

GR Infraprojects Ltd. v. ACIT

158 Taxmann.com 80 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under section 270A cannot be sustained without the Assessing Officer specifying the exact charge against the assessee, including which part of section 270A(9) is attracted. Immunity under section 270AA may be granted if the Assessing Officer fails to specify the relevant sub-clause of section 270A(9) or mechanically passes an order without considering the assessee's replies.

DCIT v. Chakradhar Contractors and Engineers (P.) Ltd.

171 Taxmann.com 133 · 2025 · Reported

citing judgments

Penalty under section 270A is not leviable in the absence of specifying the sub-clause of section 270A(9) under which the penalty is initiated.

Judgments citing under-reporting of income

St. Josephs Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. Dcot. Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3295/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

procedural irregularity, not a substantive defect, and does not invalidate the notice. b. Nature of Default Supports Under-Reporting • Section 270A(2) defines under-reporting as income omitted from the return or not reported. The search on 07.11.2017 revealed unaccounted capitation fees not recorded in the books or disclosed ... jumping the gun by justifying the action of the Ld.AO by passing the penalty order levying penalty of 50% of under-reporting of income. The issue is not whether the action of the assessee, evidence gathered during search justifies or warrants levying of penalty or not. There

St. Josephs Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

ITA 3294/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aamts 3888 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

St.Josephs Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3293/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

The Saswad Mali Sugar Factory, Solapur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Solapur

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

ITA 312/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.312/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Saswad Mali Sugar Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Solapur. Factory, Malingar Tal. Malshiras, Dist. Solapur- 413108. Pan : Aaact9821D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B. D. Bhide Revenue By : Shri A. D. Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 06.01.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of The Penalty Order U/S 270A Of The Act For Assessment Year 2017-18 Framed On 15.09.2021 By The Ito, Nfac, Delhi. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Of Appeal But All Are Directed Against The Findings Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac

For Appellant: Shri B. D. BhideFor Respondent: Shri A. D. Kulkarni

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(2)

/NFAC 2 confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act at Rs.15,37,754/- levied by the Assessing Officer for under-reporting of income of Rs.1,02,96,316/- for reversal of excess gratuity provision. 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the legal ... specified as the case of the assessee falls under which clause i.e. clause 2(a) to 2(g) for the alleged under-reporting of income. The said legal ground challenging the assumption of jurisdiction for carrying out the impugned penalty proceedings has been raised for the first time before this

Ascot Realty Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1-, Thane

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

ITA 4644/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MarwahaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act is not discernible as to whether the penalty has been levied for Under-reporting of Income Or for Misreporting of income and has been issued without any application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case

Ascot Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -1, Thane

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

ITA 4643/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MarwahaFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Coursera Inc., California vs. ACIT, Circle Intl Tax-1(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1958/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandracoursera Inc. Vs. Acit, Circle-1(2)(1) 381, East Evelyn Avenue International Taxation, Mountain View, Civic Centre, Minto Road California United States New Delhi – 110002 Of America - 94040 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc4141K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv, &For Respondent: Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270A

added to the income of the assessee. (Addition as discussed: Rs. 89,28,61,219/-) 12. Further, this is a fit case for under-reporting of income on part of the assessee. Hence, penalty is being proposed to be initiated u/s 270A of the IT Act, 1961. 13. Hence, total

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax) 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4778/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153

proceedings under section 270A of the Act The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income. Ground no 5: Levy of interest under section 234A of the Act The learned AO erred in levying interest amounting

M/S Pazhayangadi G Gold, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69

satisfaction that the income is under-reported by the assessee, and accordingly, a penalty under section 270A of the Act was initiated for under-reporting of income. 4. Subsequently, the learned PCIT issued a notice under section 263 of the Act, observing as follows: - "The assessment order

Karimnagar Milk Producer Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Karimnagar

ITA 1388/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 270A

Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 270A of the I.T.Act on 23.03.2022 levying a penalty of Rs.7,74,504/- on the ground of under-reporting of income. The due date for filing the appeal before the learned CIT (A) is on or before 22.04.2022. Aggrieved with the order of penalty

Ernst and Young U.S. LLP, Usa vs. ACIT Circle Intl Taxation 1(2)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2168/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh.C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C

case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income against the appellant, which is bad in law. All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and notwithstanding each other. The Appellant craves

Muthuswamy Muruganandham, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvallur

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

ITA 397/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 397/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Muthuswamy Muruganandham, Income Tax Officer, 09-B, Variyar Nagar, Vs. Ward -1, Karthiekeyapuram Road, Tiruvallur. Tiruttani, Tiruvallur – 631 209. [Pan:Aropm-8711-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. N.Vijay Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Deeptha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

variation in respect of issue of salary income and imposed a :-4-: ITA. No.:397/Chny/2025 penalty u/s.270A of the Act for ‘under-reporting of income’ amounting to Rs.9,07,270/- @ 50% of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated ... However, the AO :-6-: ITA. No.:397/Chny/2025 passed the penalty order and levied penalty @ 50% of the taxes only for the reason for under-reporting of income and which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee became eligible to claim immunity from imposition of penalty u/s.270A

DCIT, C-1 (Exemptions), Chandigarh vs. The Institution of Civil Engineers Society, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 52/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)

Assessed at Rs.6,71,13,689/-. Issue requisite documents. Charge interest as applicable. Penalty u/s 270Aof the Act is initiated for under-reporting of income as a consequence of misreporting as per clause 9(a), 9(c), 9(d) in view of the discussion above. GARIMA SHARMA EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE

Ashokbhai Khodabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 270A(6)

Department. He further submitted that the assessee had explained the reason for non-filing of return and that his explanation for under-reporting of income was bona- fide. According to the ld. AR, considering the fact that the return of income was accepted, there was no under-reporting of income ... considered the rival submissions. The provision of section 270A(2)(b) of the Act stipulates that a person shall be considered to have under-reported his income where no return of income is furnished or where the return is furnished for the first time under section

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Narasimha Reddy Duthala, Hyderabad

ITA 1113/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 54Section 54F

claimed under section 54F of Rs.53,22,48,667/- is being disallowed. Penalty proceedings u/s.270A(9) of the Act are being initiated for under-reporting of income inconsequence of misreporting as the assessee has misrepresented facts. Late fees u/s.234F of the Act is being levied since the return of income

Cera Sanitaryware Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1334/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

disallowed u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D and added to the total income of the assessee. Also, penalty proceeding u/s 270A is initiated for under-reporting of income. 5. Aggrieved against the assessment order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who also confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune vs. Zeal Education Society, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1642/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Puranikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

allowing excess claim of expenditure of Rs. 6,04,24,824/- and initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income. 2.1 During the penalty proceedings, in response to show-cause notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act, the assessee vide its reply ... observed that the addition was made on account of incorrect entries recorded in the books of account of the assessee which clearly reflected under-reporting of income and therefore, the assessee is liable to pay penalty u/s 270A of the Act. He levied penalty

Kanchan Santoshlumar Srivastav, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2536/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 270A

statistical purposes. 9. The assessee in this appeal has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 270A by the Assessing Officer on account of under-reporting of income. 10. Since the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, therefore, the issue relating

Kanchan Santoshlumar Srivastav, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2533/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 270A

Rajkumar Munnilal Gupta, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 30/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR

Section 270A

assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings U/S.270A of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately for under-reporting of income.” 5. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the appeal was time barred by a period of 160 days. When asked to provide