“under-reporting of income”

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 6(1)(1), Maharashtra

that unless the error had been identified by the computerized system, it would have gone unchecked. He treated the case as one of under-reporting of income. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 13,46,813/- as short- term capital gains taxable under section 111A ... initiated penalty proceedings for under-reporting of income under section 270A of the Act. 90. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee assailed the impugned addition by filing detailed written submissions. It was contended that during the relevant previous year, the assessee had sold a total

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 6 (1)(1), Maharashtra

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

ITA No. 6663, 6701, 6702 & 6703/Mum/2025 Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: These four appeals are

Aditya Birla Sun Life Amc Limited, Maharashtra vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(1), Maharashtra

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

ITA No. 6663, 6701, 6702 & 6703/Mum/2025 Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Limited आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: These four appeals are

Trent Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

goodwill was disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act were initiated separately for under-reporting of income. 8. Aggrieved by the said disallowance, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A).Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated

Harish Hari Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 33(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarharish Hari Gandhi Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shop No.1, Gokul Monarch, Tax, Circle 33(1), Mumbai Room No. 949, 9Th Floor, Kautilya Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai-400101 Bhawan, G-Block, Bandra (E), Pan:Aadpg1721F Mumbai-400051 Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Paras Savla, Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Addl/Jcit(A), Thiruvanantpuram [For Brevity ‘The Ld.Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 10.09.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Stamp valuing authority by invoking the provisions of section 43CA of the Act. Penalty u/s. 270A of the Act is initiated separately for under-reporting of income.” 4. The Ld. AR contended that, in respect of Flat Nos. 705 and 502, the difference between the stamp duty value

Mark Engineers (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2018-19 Mark Engineers (India) Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ci/1302, Hyde Park, Plot 8-10, Vs. Circle-14(1)(1), Sector 35/G, Kharghar, Aayakar Bhavan, Navi Mumbai-410210. M.K. Road, Pan : Aaacm4258R Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri B. Shankar For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 18-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Sustaining The Levy Of Penalty U/S.270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

revenues in respect 4 of which have already been offered in the earlier financial years on accrual basis and there is thus no under-reporting of income which call for levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. It was submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has acknowledged the said submissions

Kshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd. Dcit- Circle 210, Mogra Village, Old 2(1)(1), Nagardas Road, Mumbai- Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 400069 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aabck8174D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vishwas Mehendale Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

Facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, ld. lower officers have erred in holding that appellants had willfully and knowingly under-reported their income to the tune of Rs. 1,56,00,000/- which is liable to pay penalty under Section 270A ... Assessing Officer, while initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order, has not specified as to whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for “under-reporting of income” under section 270A(2) or for “misreporting of income” under section 270A(9). According to the learned AR, such non-application of mind

Smt. Urmila Dhelia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

attract penalty u/s.270A; ii) there is no misrepresentation or suppression of the facts of the case; even otherwise it could be case of under-reporting of income for which the Appellant was eligible for grant of immunity from imposition of penalty u/s.270AA as the prescribed conditions ... joint reading of various provisions contained in Section 270A of the Act it becomes clear that on occurrence of the instance of under-reporting of income specified in Section 270A(2)(a) to 270A(2)(g) of the Act, in case the Assessing Officer arrives at a conclusion that