“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

Olympia Builders Private Limited, Delhi vs. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5158/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 14ASection 270A

grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty of INR 1,23,535/- under s. 270A of the Act alleging under-reporting of income to the extent of INR 7,99,580/- attributable to additions under s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules ... straightway note that in order to attract penalty under s. 270A of the Act, it is necessary that there must be under-reporting of income by the assessee. The disallowance of certain expenditure on estimated basis cannot be equated with under-reporting or mis-reporting of income

Agashi Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Agashi, Virar vs. AO, Ward 4(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1683/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Dnyanesh PatadeFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Sources’. The ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and a notice u/s 270A was issued on 22.04.2021 for under-reporting of income inconsequence of mis-reporting of income 4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide an order dated

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals bearing ITA Nos 515 & 516/Mum/2025 filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 516/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Ms.Priyanka Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 80

claim is bona fide: 6 ITA 515 and 516/Mum/2025 Jyothy Labs Limited As stated supra, the penalty proceedings have been initiated for alleged under-reporting of income on account of disallowance of assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 16,62,30,011/- under section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals bearing ITA Nos 515 & 516/Mum/2025 filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 515/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Ms.Priyanka Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 80

Jayantibhai Jivabhai Patel, Bharuch vs. Ward No. 1(1), Bharuch

In the result, the penalty imposed under Section 270A of the Act is directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee succeeds

ITA 962/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. DR

Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

specified under which specific limb of Section 270A(2) of the Act (which deals with specific instances of under-reporting of income) does the case of the assessee fall into. It is a well settled law that in order to levy of penalty under Section 270A ... note that Ld. CIT(A) has not pointed out to which specific limb of Section 270A(2) of the Act relating to under-reporting of income, in which the assessee’s case is falling. As noted in the preceding paragraphs, the only basis for the variation made by the Assessing

Raigad Darshan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ITO Ward 8(3), Pune

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

ITA 532/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 532/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vs Ito Ward 8(3), Raigad Darshan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Pune Maryadit, Krishna Vatika, Jyotiba Nagar, Surve No. 77/1/2/1 Kalewadi, Kalewadi B.O-411017 Maharashtra Pan-Aacar7156B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Miss Kimya KudvaFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk-

Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 80P

without appreciating the fact that the learned AO has not recorded any satisfaction on whether the penalty is for "under-reporting of income" or "misreporting of income". 5. Appellant contends that levying penalty u/s 270A of the ITA, 1961 amounting to Rs. 33,46,386/- for misreporting of income

Emerald Alchymicus Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1424/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Sri Pankaj Soni, Adv a/w Ms. S. Shanmugam,ARsFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14ASection 270ASection 68Section 69A

dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex-parte and confirming the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for alleged under-reporting of income, in consequence of misreporting the particulars of income. ITA 1423/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) 1. That the ex-parte order dated 18.12.2024, passed ... dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex-parte and confirming the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for alleged under-reporting of income. ITA 1424/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) 1. That the ex-parte order dated 18.12.2024, passed by the CIT(A) is perverse, arbitrary

Emerald Alchymicus Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1423/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Sri Pankaj Soni, Adv a/w Ms. S. Shanmugam,ARsFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14ASection 270ASection 68Section 69A

Emerald Alchymicus Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1422/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Sri Pankaj Soni, Adv a/w Ms. S. Shanmugam,ARsFor Respondent: Sri Biswanath Das, (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14ASection 270ASection 68Section 69A

The Ahmedabad District Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1108/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 40

Consequently, penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act were initiated, and penalty of Rs.34,98,290/- was levied on account of alleged under-reporting of income. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the claim was made based on judicial pronouncements prevailing at the time ... follows – Section 270A(1): The Assessing Officer may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under-reported his income shall be liable to pay a penalty in addition to tax, if any, on the under-reported income. Section 270A

The Chanour Co-Operative Aggriculture Service Society Limited, Kangra vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - Dharamshala, Dharamshala

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 464/CHANDI/2024[2017-18 ]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 464/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Chanour Co-Operative Agriculture Ito - Dharamshala Service Society Ltd. Himachal Pradesh. बनाम/ C/O Shri Tejmohan Singh Vs. #527, Sector-10D Chandigarh – 160011 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacat-7465-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Adv.) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28-02-2024 Confirming Penalty U/S 270A For Rs.57,715/- As Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated 14-12-2021 In The Matter Of Quantum Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) On 23-12-2019. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Adv.) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)

income of Rs.3.83 Lacs, tax payable came to be Rs.1.15 Lacs. Consequently, Ld. AO levied impugned penalty u/s 270A for Rs.57,715/- for under-reporting of income. 4. During appellate proceedings, the assessee, inter-alia, stated that the claims were bona-fide claims. The assessee made true and full disclosure

Shaju Raman Arangath, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Kalyan

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Shaju Raman Arangath Ito Ward 3(2) 502, Apollonia, Triveni Rani Mansion Laurel, Next To Rto Vs. 2Nd Floor Near Birla School Murbad Road Kalyan West Kalyan Maharashtra-421 301. Maharashtra-421301. Pan : Ammpa5973C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh ThakwaniFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Mehta

Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)Section 270ASection 285B

considering the fact and law that the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in alleging that 2 Shaju Raman Arangath Appellant had under-reported his income and levied penalty of Rs. 2,72,288/- under section 270A of the Act. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case ... Year 2019-20 when there was complete absence of any income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment; there comes no question of any under-reporting of income. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding

Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Junnar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2434/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2428 & 2434/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Department. Maryadit, Arvi Junnar- 412401. Pan : Aagas3985H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2434/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69ASection 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

disallowance of claim u/s 80P as all the relevant materials were on the record and therefore, should not be considered to be Under-reporting of Income. 4. In any case, the addition cannot be termed as Miss-reporting of income u/s 270A(9). 5. The appellant craves for to leave

Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Junnar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2428/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69ASection 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Oceaneering International Gmbh, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Int. Taxation)Range-3(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 802/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Abdul Kadir Jawadwala ARFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 145ASection 153Section 254(1)Section 44B

receipts for the purpose of calculating presumptive income under section 44BB of the Act and proceeded to form a believe that income is under-reporting of income. 2. The rival submissions of both the parties have heard and record perused. The Learned Authorized Representative (Id. AR) of the assessee submits

Liquidhub Analytics Pvt. Ltd. (Now Merged With Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd), Pune vs. NFAC, Pune

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

ITA 1952/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt Nilu Jaggi, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act on arbitrary premise that there is under-reporting of income done by the Appellant The above grounds are without prejudice to each other The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds herein

Archana Achyut Sail, Mumbai vs. NFAC

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5278/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

apply. Alternatively, it is submitted that the authorities below were not justified in treating the case as one falling under the head of “under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting”. 13. It is submitted that in the notice issued by the Assessing Officer there was only reference to under ... find that both in the assessment order as well as the order passed by learned CIT(A), the findings is only about under-reporting of income. Sub-section (1) to Section 270A of the Act provides that the Assessing Officer “may” during the course of any proceedings direct that

Archana Achyut Sail, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5277/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Sumit MantriFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Ab Sciex Pte. Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 804/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44B

facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under-reporting of income by the appellant.” 4. Suffice to say, both the parties are very much ad idem during the course of hearing before us that

Oceaneering International Gmbh, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It) 3(2)(2), Air India Building, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 4670/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 274Section 44B

receipts for the purpose of calculating presumptive income under Section 44BB of the Act and proceeded to form a believe that income is under-reporting of income. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute the aforesaid grounds of appeal or add a new ground