← All Phrases

“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
38
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
29
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
14
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
13
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
11
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
10
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

Aawagaman Mercantile LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3235/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailaawagaman Mercantile Llp, 204, Anand Estate, Arthur Road 189, Mumbai, Jacob Circle S.O. Mumbai - 400011 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Abbfa0328F V/S Ito, Ward – 1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata ……………. Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata. Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 111ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270Section 270A

bonafide mistake. 6. The AO, vide order dated 28/03/2022, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that the assessee has under-reported its income, which is in consequence of misreporting of income under section 270A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO levied a penalty ... income is in consequence of misreporting thereof. In the present case, it is undisputed that the AO has alleged that the assessee has under-reported its income which is in consequence of misreporting of income under section 270A of the Act. However, it is the plea of the assessee that

Shantilal R. Patel, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Lunawada

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1576/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1573, 1574, 1575 & 1576/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Shantilal R Patel, Income Tax Officer, 1, Shriji Park, बनाम Ward-1, Vs. Lunawada Vardhari Road, Lunawada. Lunawada, Panchmahal-389230. Pan: Akbpp6276G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mk Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri N J Vyas, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri N J Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 234Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

facts has dismissed the ground of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged under-reporting of income 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 2348, 234C ... facts has dismissed the ground of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged under-reporting of income. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 234B, 234C

Shantilal R. Patel, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Lunawada

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1575/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1573, 1574, 1575 & 1576/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Shantilal R Patel, Income Tax Officer, 1, Shriji Park, बनाम Ward-1, Vs. Lunawada Vardhari Road, Lunawada. Lunawada, Panchmahal-389230. Pan: Akbpp6276G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mk Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri N J Vyas, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri N J Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 234Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

facts has dismissed the ground of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged under-reporting of income 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 2348, 234C ... facts has dismissed the ground of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged under-reporting of income. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 234B, 234C

Shantilal R. Patel, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Lunawada

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1574/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1573, 1574, 1575 & 1576/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Shantilal R Patel, Income Tax Officer, 1, Shriji Park, बनाम Ward-1, Vs. Lunawada Vardhari Road, Lunawada. Lunawada, Panchmahal-389230. Pan: Akbpp6276G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mk Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri N J Vyas, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri N J Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 234Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

facts has dismissed the ground of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged under-reporting of income 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 2348, 234C ... facts has dismissed the ground of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged under-reporting of income. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 234B, 234C

Shantilal R. Patel, Panchmahal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Lunawada

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1573/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1573, 1574, 1575 & 1576/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2012-2013, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Shantilal R Patel, Income Tax Officer, 1, Shriji Park, बनाम Ward-1, Vs. Lunawada Vardhari Road, Lunawada. Lunawada, Panchmahal-389230. Pan: Akbpp6276G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mk Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri N J Vyas, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri N J Vyas, Sr.DR
Section 234Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

facts has dismissed the ground of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged under-reporting of income 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 2348, 234C ... facts has dismissed the ground of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged under-reporting of income. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 234B, 234C

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm..of Incometax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1344/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(7)

Assessee drew the attention of the Bench to sub-section (2) of sec.270A according to which, a person shall be considered to have under-reported his income if the following conditions are satisfied. a. “the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause ... cannot take plea of an inadvertent error for not disclosing the interest on income tax refund. Therefore, the assessee has misreported and thereby under-reported the income for which the CIT(A) was fully justified in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/sec.270A

Income Tax Officer, Kudal vs. Sindhudurg District Primary Teachers Co-Operative Credit Society, Oros, Sindhudurg Nagari, Kudal

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2113/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2113/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind desai
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

from Cooperative Banks does not qualify for deduction. Therefore, the AO vide order dated 13.01.2023 levied penalty of Rs.65,16,796/- u/s.270A for under-reporting of Income. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority who vide impugned order deleted the penalty by holding as under : “5. Thus

Sushil Rajendra Kothari, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4734/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Revenue /For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 57

above, it is held that this is a fit case for levy of penalty uns. 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. Hence, the assessee is liable to pay penalty of two hundred percent of the amount of tax payable ... under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. The income tax payable on under- reported in consequence of misreported income worked out as under- Particulars Tax Payable on Assessed income (A) Tax Payable on Returned Income (B) Tax payable on under-reported in consequence of misreported income

Smita Virendra Lodha, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1980/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 270A

details. The Assessing Officer accepted the income returned of Rs.18,74,800/-. However, he initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income. 4. During the course of such penalty proceedings the assessee filed a detailed reply submitting that ... Long Term Capital Gain. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer rightly invoked the provision of section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence to mis- reporting of income. 5 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that assessee has 'under-reporting

Melakandy Puthalath Farook, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1890/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1890/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Melekandy Puthalath Farook Acit बनाम/ Faraz No.9 Sbi Colony, Corporate Circle-2(1) Vs. Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapf-2644-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274

imposing penalty u/s 270A should not be passed. 5. Finally, in the penalty order. Ld. AO held that it was a case of under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. Therefore, it was a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 270A(9)(a). Finally ... under-reporting as well as misreporting of income. Finally, in the penalty order, Ld. AO held that it was a case of under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. Therefore, it was a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 270A(9)(a). We find that

Patel Kenwood Private Limited, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.62/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Patel Kenwood Pvt.Ltd. The Ito बनाम/ Plot No.100 To 103 Ward-2(1)(1) V/S. Timber Market Vadodara Gidc Ankleshwar Ankleshwar – 393 002 Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccp 0220 G अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Nilisha Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Ms. Nilisha Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(8)

total income was determined at Rs.3,44,99,970/-. 2.1. Subsequently, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in the nature of misreporting and issued penalty notices. The AO, being unsatisfied with the assessee’s explanations, levied a penalty of Rs.1

Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1544/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 56(2)(x)

stamp duty value as determined by the Departmental Valuer. 2.3. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act were initiated for under-reporting of income. A penalty of Rs.6,28,541/- (50% of the tax on the under-reported income) was levied on the assessee. The assessee explained that ... assessment order within the prescribed time. The penalty was imposed despite the assessee’s argument that the valuation difference did not constitute under-reporting of income, as it was a result of legitimate market conditions. 3. The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A), NFAC, against both the quantum addition

Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1543/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 56(2)(x)

stamp duty value as determined by the Departmental Valuer. 2.3. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act were initiated for under-reporting of income. A penalty of Rs.6,28,541/- (50% of the tax on the under-reported income) was levied on the assessee. The assessee explained that ... assessment order within the prescribed time. The penalty was imposed despite the assessee’s argument that the valuation difference did not constitute under-reporting of income, as it was a result of legitimate market conditions. 3. The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A), NFAC, against both the quantum addition

Suresh Chembakara Appunni, Palakkad vs. The ITO Ward 2, Palakkad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 414/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsuresh Chambakara Appunni The Income Tax Officer-2 Ezhakad, Mundur Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Palakkad 678600 English Church Road [Pan: Anaps5889G] Palakkad 678014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)

treated as the assessee’s bonafide mistake only u/s.270A(6)(a) of the Act which has itself excluded from the purview of “under-reporting of income” by the legislature. We accordingly delete the impugned penalty in very terms. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced

Deepak Bhika Suryawanshi, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

Appeals are allowed

ITA 685/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Annasaheb Namdeo Gunjal Vs. Ito, Nashik 1, Vraj Vihar, Vidhate Nagar, S.No.15-10-2011, Cts No.2421, Fame Theatre, Nsk Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 Pan: Aaxpg5950C Appellant Respondent "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Deepak Bhika Suryawanshi Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Plot No.36, Nashik Vrundavan Bunglow, Deffodil Soc, Wadala-Pathardi Road, Opp. Guru Govind Singh College, Indira Nagar, Nashik – 422009 Pan: Achps8498R Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 9

dated 06.02.2024, nowhere specify the corresponding limbs in section 270A(9)(a) to (f) whilst concluding that these are the instances of under-reporting of income as a consequence to misreporting thereof. 3. When we pointed out this clinching fact to the department, Mr. Murkunde quoted M/s. Veena Estate ... comply with the rigor of section 270A(8) and (9) (a to f) before concluding that the assessee committed any default of under-reporting of income as a consequence to misreporting. 3. Learned DR vehemently argued that the instant issue is no more resintegra in light

Annasaheb Namdeo Gunjal, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

Appeals are allowed

ITA 182/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Annasaheb Namdeo Gunjal Vs. Ito, Nashik 1, Vraj Vihar, Vidhate Nagar, S.No.15-10-2011, Cts No.2421, Fame Theatre, Nsk Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 Pan: Aaxpg5950C Appellant Respondent "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Deepak Bhika Suryawanshi Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Plot No.36, Nashik Vrundavan Bunglow, Deffodil Soc, Wadala-Pathardi Road, Opp. Guru Govind Singh College, Indira Nagar, Nashik – 422009 Pan: Achps8498R Appellant Respondent

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 9

dated 06.02.2024, nowhere specify the corresponding limbs in section 270A(9)(a) to (f) whilst concluding that these are the instances of under-reporting of income as a consequence to misreporting thereof. 3. When we pointed out this clinching fact to the department, Mr. Murkunde quoted M/s. Veena Estate ... comply with the rigor of section 270A(8) and (9) (a to f) before concluding that the assessee committed any default of under-reporting of income as a consequence to misreporting. 3. Learned DR vehemently argued that the instant issue is no more resintegra in light

Arihant Retail Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1308/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1308/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Arihant Retail Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 29, Namachivaya Chetty Street, V. Income Tax -1, Old Washermanpet, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 021. [Pan: Aaics-3648-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 69C

back to the total income of the assessee under the head "Income from other sources". Penalty u/s 271AAC(1) is being initiated for under-reporting of income. Tax shall be calculated according to section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Disallowances u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s

St. Peter School, Durgapur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 820/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 St. Peters School Ito, Ward-2(1), Exemption, Na, Mira Bai Road B Zone, Durgapur. Vs Durgapur, Burdwan-713204 (Pan: Aaatb9527D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Subho Chakraborty, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Additional Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Subho Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Additional CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

sole ground involved in this appeal is the penalty was levied by the AO on alleged under-reporting of income due to mis- reporting specifically the disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee u/s. 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 3. Brief

Iifl Samasta Finance Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1054/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 40Section 43

opinion that immunity u/s 270AA has not been granted to the assessee as the penalty was initiated for the under-reporting of income as well as mis-reporting of Income and taking into account assessee's submission as well as by relying on various decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court ... Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner 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. (2)A person shall

Sujeet Gupta, Bareilly vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Bareilly New

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.208/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sujeet Gupta, Shop No. S-55, M/S Paris Fashions, Awas Vikas Market, Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly, Up-243122 Pan: Aifpg6341K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Krishna Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 3

that the grounds of appeal collectively are seeking justice for not providing adequate opportunity of heard by the Ld AO and alleging the under-reporting of income cannot said to be misreporting of income. 4. Invoking rule 24 of ITAT-Rules, we have heard the Ld. DR and subject