← All Phrases

“mis-reporting of income”

PenaltySection 270ASection 270A132 judgments

RAJKAMAL AGNIHOTRI,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Rajkamal Agnihotri Vs Ito Shivalik View, Lane No.3, Ward-1(1)(3) Jogiala, Ring Road, Dehradun Nathanpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -248005 Pan-Amqpa2608G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. K. Juneja, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10408670 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,89,260/-. The Return Was Updated On 11.09.2023 U/S 139(8A) Of The Act, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 73,92,200/- & Paid The Taxes Alongwith The Interest Thereon. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Ground That No Capital Gain Was Reported In Itr Though The Assessee Has Sold The Property Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Act Dated 14.03.2024 Wherein Income Declared In The Updated Return Filed U/S 139(8A) Of The Act Was Accepted However, Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A(1) R.W.S. 270A(8) & 270A(9)(A) Of The Act Were Initiated. The Ao Thereafter, Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings & Imposed The Penalty In Terms Of The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Imposing The Penalty Of Inr 31,58,542/- U/S 270A Of The Act.

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 19Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 9

section 270(A9) of the Act however, in the instant case once the updated return is accepted, there is no under reporting or mis-reporting of income on the part of the assessee. Besides this, Ld.AR submits that the notice issued for initiation of penalty proceedings does not specify under

GRAND LEGACY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Grand Legacy Vs Dcit Khasra No.384 Min/New Circle-1, No.642K, Dehra Khas Dehradun Adjoining Lal Pul Patel Uttarakhand Nagar, Dehradun Uttarakhand -248001 Pan-Aaifg4885D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajan Malik & Shri A.K. Kashyap Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10101141 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S 80-Ic Of The Act Which Was Disallowed By The Ao For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Fulfilled The Conditions Prescribed For Claiming Said Deduction & Initiated The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271A For Under Reporting As A Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Of Income. Thereafter, Ao Levied Penalty U/S 271A Of The Act Of Inr 67,820/- For Under Reporting By Invoking Clause (E) Of Sub-Section (9) Of Section 270A Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 80Section 80I

fulfilled the conditions prescribed for claiming said deduction and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271A for under reporting as a consequence of mis-reporting of income. Thereafter, AO levied penalty u/s 271A of the Act of INR 67,820/- for under reporting by invoking clause (e) of sub-section ... charge under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. He further submits that penalty proceedings were imitated for under reporting as a consequence of mis-reporting of income however, the penalty is levied for under reporting of income. Therefore, no penalty is levied on the charge for which it was initiated

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 2362/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessee under the provisions of section 69A of the IT Act.\nPenalty proceedings 271AAC is also initiated for under reporting as\nwell as mis-reporting of income.\nProvisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act is also applicable for\nlevying the tax at the rate of 60%+ surcharge

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 2361/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessee under the provisions of section 69A of the IT Act.\nPenalty proceedings 271AAC is also initiated for under reporting as\nwell as mis-reporting of income.\nProvisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act is also applicable for\nlevying the tax at the rate of 60%+ surcharge

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 2360/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

assessee under the provisions of section 69A of the IT Act.\nPenalty proceedings 271AAC is also initiated for under reporting as\nwell as mis-reporting of income.\nProvisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act is also applicable for\nlevying the tax at the rate of 60%+ surcharge

KAIDVANA MUVADA P DUDH UTPADAK SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

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

ITA 2325/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271ASection 69C

facts in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged under reporting and/or mis-reporting of income. 6.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts has confirmed the charging interest under section 234A

M/S. AVM PRODUCTIONS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-20(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

Section 270Section 270A

assessee. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated vide notice u/s.270A of Act dated 25.10.2019 for mis-reporting of income and after hearing the assessee’s objection is noted to have imposed penalty of ₹6,82,606/- viz 200% of the amount

S S R S MEM EDU SOCIETY,SOUTH EXTENSION PART-II vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is\nallowed

ITA 3064/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri V.K Tulsian, Chartered Accountant (Virtual)For Respondent: \nShri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 270A

nthe same. The Id. DR pointed that a perusal of the penalty order would show that\nthe Assessing Officer has levied penalty for mis-reporting of income. Sub section\n(8) to section 270A of the Act provides for levy of penalty equal to 200% of amount\nof tax payable

KAMAL SHADIJA,INDORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX EPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 637/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2020-21 Kamal Shadija Assessment Unit 156, Palsikar Colony, Income Tax Department बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Azsps4490H Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 57

levy of penalty u/s 270A is illegal and bad in law since there is no under reporting and mis-reporting of income. The assessee is paying interest in earlier years also and such claim was accepted by the Department. Thus, there is no case of under reporting of income

AXA PARENTERALS LIMITED,UP vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

ITA 5040/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270Section 37Section 37(1)

added to the income. 3.8 Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act is hereby initiated for under reporting in consequence to mis-reporting of income. 4. Accordingly Assessed Income is computed as under: Sl No. Description Amount (in INR) 1. Income as per Return of Income filed

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

seized by the search team. From these discrepancies, the AO confirmed that the assessee had under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income from unaccounted cash, However, in order to correct the discrepancies, the Assessee voluntarily offered an additional 1% of total turnover to taxation ... initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income. 18.3 The assessee contended that there was no under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income for the year under consideration. Further, during search

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1839/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

seized by the search team. From these discrepancies, the AO confirmed that the assessee had under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income from unaccounted cash, However, in order to correct the discrepancies, the Assessee voluntarily offered an additional 1% of total turnover to taxation ... initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income. 18.3 The assessee contended that there was no under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income for the year under consideration. Further, during search

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

seized by the search team. From these discrepancies, the AO confirmed that the assessee had under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income from unaccounted cash, However, in order to correct the discrepancies, the Assessee voluntarily offered an additional 1% of total turnover to taxation ... initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income. 18.3 The assessee contended that there was no under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income for the year under consideration. Further, during search

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

seized by the search team. From these discrepancies, the AO confirmed that the assessee had under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income from unaccounted cash, However, in order to correct the discrepancies, the Assessee voluntarily offered an additional 1% of total turnover to taxation ... initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income. 18.3 The assessee contended that there was no under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income for the year under consideration. Further, during search

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

seized by the search team. From these discrepancies, the AO confirmed that the assessee had under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income from unaccounted cash, However, in order to correct the discrepancies, the Assessee voluntarily offered an additional 1% of total turnover to taxation ... initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income. 18.3 The assessee contended that there was no under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income for the year under consideration. Further, during search

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

seized by the search team. From these discrepancies, the AO confirmed that the assessee had under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income from unaccounted cash, However, in order to correct the discrepancies, the Assessee voluntarily offered an additional 1% of total turnover to taxation ... initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income. 18.3 The assessee contended that there was no under-reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income for the year under consideration. Further, during search

KISHOR KUMAR GARG,JOURA ROAD, MORENA vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/AGR/2025[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshkishor Kumar Garg, Vs. Acit, Joura Road, Morena, Gwalior, Circle-3(1), Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acopg5428J Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 270A

only hold that levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act is not warranted as there is neither under reporting of income nor mis-reporting of income as the addition has been made only on ad hoc basis without rejecting book results of the assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO LIQUIDHUB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 2753/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155Section 155(18)Section 18Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 40

Cess" 5. The Ld. AO alongwith issuance of the assessment order, also initiated penalty proceedings for alleged under-reporting of income out of mis-reporting of income on account of misrepresentation and suppression of facts. However, penalty amounting to INR 2,31,310 was levied on the Company on alleged

LAXMICHAND AND COMPANY,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWL, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 313/AGR/2025[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 44A

levied without specifying whether it was for under-reporting of income as envisaged under section 270A(2)(a) to (g) or for mis-reporting of income under section 270A(9)(a) to (f) of the Act. On these facts, the Coordinate Bench of the Pune Tribunal deleted the penalty. Similarly

RAJESH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 69 (1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5293/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Rajesh Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Air Force Central Accounts Ward-69(1), Office (Afcao), Subroto Park, Vs Civic Centre, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi-110010 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaapg8059M Assessee Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2026

Section 270A

considered view that the ingredients for imposition of penalty under section 270A of under reporting of income, which is inconsequence of mis-reporting of income are not available in the present case so as to attract imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Accordingly, the orders of lower

Showing 1–20 of 132 · Page 1 of 7