“mis-reporting of income”

PenaltySection 270ASection 270A132 judgments

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

Leading authorities on mis-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.

Judgments citing mis-reporting of income

Manoj Kumar Gangadharan, Bhopal vs. ITO (It and Tp) Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 670/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

first appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Section 270A of the Act contemplates penalty for under reporting and mis-reporting of income whereas Section 270AA of the Act contemplates immunity from the imposition of penalty etc. and for which two conditions must be fulfilled by virtue of Section

Venkateshwara Rao Dalapathirao, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 988/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, B Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 274

these GOA, appellant contended that, AO erred in not mentioning in the notice clearly whether it involves under- reporting of income or mis-reporting of income and thereby appellant claims such notice as defective and requested to consider. Further in these GOA, appellant contends that, AO ought not have initiated ... these GOA, appellant is contending that the penalty notice as issued is not clear whether issued on under reporting of income or mis-reporting of income and AO ought not to have given such penalty notice on an estimated income and thereby pleaded to 6 ITA.No.988/Hyd./2025 delete

Chundayil Kalam Girijadevi, Keralassery vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Palakkad

ITA 564/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Padmnathan K.VFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal

Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

Ward-1 (3) (7), Surat No. ITA No.697 & 698/SRT/2018 to buttress this contention. F. The levy of penalty at 200% of tax as mis-reporting of income is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice, since 2 Assessment Year 2018-2019 there was no allegation of misreporting

Air Wind Green Energy Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad -1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 615/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 147Section 263Section 270A(9)Section 37Section 69C

having not initiated penalty ITA No. 615/Ahd/2025 [Air Wind Green Energy Limited vs. PCIT] A.Y. 2018-19 - 5 – proceedings for mis-reporting of income for under reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income u/s.270A(9) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed

ITO, Pune vs. Thegovernmentserventsmaharastraco-Op Credit Society Limited Pune, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 714/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

income from other source of the assessee society for the year under consideration. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A is initiated for mis-reporting of income separately.” 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) after examining the details has held that Maharashtra Societies Act does

ITO, Pune vs. The Government Servents Maharashtra Co-Op Credit Society Limited Pune, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 713/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, DR

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Brijlaxmi Paper Products Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 853/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 853/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Brijlaxmi Paper Products Pvt. Limited,……..Appellant 686, Shrachi Tower, Anandapur Em Byepass, Kolkata-700107 [Pan:Aafcb2003G] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,….....Respondent Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Sanjay Chatterjee, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Dheeraj, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 05, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270A

Rs.1,51,233/- was added on account of excess interest payment claim on which penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for mis-reporting of income was initiated. Subsequently, show cause notices for penalty under section 270A for misreporting of income were issued to the assessee

Skandhanshi Infra Projects, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 535/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

which comes to Rs.76,84,00,000/- (18% of Rs.13,83,12,000/- ).Penalty u/s.270A of the Act is initiated separately for mis-reporting of income. 9. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee challenged

Skanda Builders, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 530/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

which includes the warranty of estimation of income @ 18% of Rs.13,83,12,000/ ).Penalty u/s.270A of the Act is initiated separately for mis-reporting of income. ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. 21 turnover and also estimation of 18% profit on suppressed turnover

Skandhanshi Developers, Kurnool vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 529/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

which comes to Rs.76,84,00,000/- (18% of Rs.13,83,12,000/- ).Penalty u/s.270A of the Act is initiated separately for mis-reporting of income. ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. 21 9. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per our aforesaid

ITA 2847/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2847/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited 403-404, Delphil B Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai Iit, Mumbai-400 076 Pan : Aabct3207A ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-15(3)(1), Mumbai ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vipul Soni Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipul SoniFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 32(1)Section 80G

adjustments 9. Erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act for under- reporting as a consequence of mis-reporting of income. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

M/S. K S Technologies, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 685/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683 To 685/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ks Technologies Vs. Income Tax Officer Mahbubnagar Ward – 1 Pan:Aakfk4547L Mahbubnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Siva Prasad, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 3 Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Dated 21/02/2025 & 25/02/2025 Arising From The Penalty Orders Passed U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act For The A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 & Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act For The A.Y 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Siva Prasad, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

erred in considering penalty levied on the appellant under section 270A of the income tax act,1961 for mis-reporting of income due to disallowance of expenditure on its own estimation and enhanced the Assessed income from Rs.51,600/- to Rs.16,00,340/-. I further state that disallowance under section

M/S.K S Technologies, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 684/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Siva Prasad, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

K S Technologies, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 683/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Siva Prasad, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

Podduturi Rajashekhar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 739/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 197Section 263Section 270ASection 270A(9)

that context, had observed that the assessee had “under reported his income as well as under reported his income as a consequence of mis-reporting of income”. We, thus, are unable to concur with the Ld. AR that the A.O., while initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 270A

ITO-19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Patdiam Jewels, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 1/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Ld. D.R

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 250

applying the provisions of section 115BBE of I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings U/s 271AAC of the I.T. Act for 10 M/s. Patdiam Jewels mis-reporting of income is being initiated for separate consideration. Addition: Rs.1,28,56,325/-“ 5. The AO also made the addition of Rs.35,85,095/- being

Karamvir Singh, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4673/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kailash Khemani, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274Section 274A

reporting”. Subsequently, vide order dated 31.12.2021 passed u/s. 270A of the Act, the AO levied penalty u/s. 270A(9) of the Act for “mis-reporting of income”. There are six clauses under sub section (9) to section 270A of the Act. The AO has failed to specify as to under ... r.w.s. 270A of the Act dated 13.05.2021, the AO has mentioned both limbs of section 270A of the Act i.e. “under reporting” and “mis-reporting of income”. Both these expressions carry different connotations and signifies different charges for levy of penalty. ‘Under reporting’ of income refers to reporting of less

The DCIT, Cir-3(2) Gangtok, Gangtok Sikkim vs. Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Gangtok Sikkim

ITA 1583/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 80P

violating the proposition of the Act. The Penalty u/s. 270A is also imposable on account of under reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income once it is determined that the claim of deduction u/s. 80(P)(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is wrong

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-3(2), Gangtok, Gangtok Sikkim vs. Sikkim State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Gangtok Sikkim

ITA 1582/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 80P

Samiappan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 487/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:487/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Samiappan, Income Tax Officer, 37/31, Kalaimagal Street, Vs. Ward- 1(1), Swarnapuri, Salem – 636 007. Salem – 636 004. [Pan:Cdips-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Mr. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

assessee and treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and taxed- accordingly. Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271AAC(1) for mis-reporting of income. Subject to the above remarks, the total income is computed as per para 4.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred