← All Phrases

“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
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.

Judgments citing mis-reporting of income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Krishi Housing Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 389/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 1 381/Hyd/2023 Acit Central Circle Bhoomika Agro 2020-21 2(2) Hyderabad Farms (P) Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 2 382/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 3 Co 7/Hyd/2023 Bhoomika Agro Acit Central Circle 2020-21 (Ita 381/H/23) Farms (P) Ltd 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 4 Co 8/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 382/H/23) 5 385/Hyd/2023 -Do- Sunshine Estate 2019-20 Construction India Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 6 386/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 7 387/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2022-22 8 Co3/Hyd/2023 Sunshine Estate Acit Central Circle 2019-20 (Ita 385/H/23) Construction India 2(2) Hyderabad Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 9 Co4/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 (Ita 386/H/23) 10 Co5/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 387/H/23) 11 388/Hyd/2023 -Do- Krishi Housing (P) 2017-18 Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B 12 389/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2018-19 13 390/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2019-20 14 391/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 15 392/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 16 Co9/Hyd/2023 Krishi Housing (P) Acit Central Circle 2017-18 (Ita 388/H/23) Ltd Hyderabad 2(2) Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B

camouflaging of total receipts as commission and hence this argument of the assessee cannot be accepted. Penalty u/s. 270A are initiated for mis-reporting of income.” 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Krishi Housing Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 388/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 1 381/Hyd/2023 Acit Central Circle Bhoomika Agro 2020-21 2(2) Hyderabad Farms (P) Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 2 382/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 3 Co 7/Hyd/2023 Bhoomika Agro Acit Central Circle 2020-21 (Ita 381/H/23) Farms (P) Ltd 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 4 Co 8/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 382/H/23) 5 385/Hyd/2023 -Do- Sunshine Estate 2019-20 Construction India Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 6 386/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 7 387/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2022-22 8 Co3/Hyd/2023 Sunshine Estate Acit Central Circle 2019-20 (Ita 385/H/23) Construction India 2(2) Hyderabad Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 9 Co4/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 (Ita 386/H/23) 10 Co5/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 387/H/23) 11 388/Hyd/2023 -Do- Krishi Housing (P) 2017-18 Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B 12 389/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2018-19 13 390/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2019-20 14 391/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 15 392/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 16 Co9/Hyd/2023 Krishi Housing (P) Acit Central Circle 2017-18 (Ita 388/H/23) Ltd Hyderabad 2(2) Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B

camouflaging of total receipts as commission and hence this argument of the assessee cannot be accepted. Penalty u/s. 270A are initiated for mis-reporting of income.” 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sunshine Estateconstruction India LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 387/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 1 381/Hyd/2023 Acit Central Circle Bhoomika Agro 2020-21 2(2) Hyderabad Farms (P) Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 2 382/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 3 Co 7/Hyd/2023 Bhoomika Agro Acit Central Circle 2020-21 (Ita 381/H/23) Farms (P) Ltd 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 4 Co 8/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 382/H/23) 5 385/Hyd/2023 -Do- Sunshine Estate 2019-20 Construction India Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 6 386/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 7 387/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2022-22 8 Co3/Hyd/2023 Sunshine Estate Acit Central Circle 2019-20 (Ita 385/H/23) Construction India 2(2) Hyderabad Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 9 Co4/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 (Ita 386/H/23) 10 Co5/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 387/H/23) 11 388/Hyd/2023 -Do- Krishi Housing (P) 2017-18 Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B 12 389/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2018-19 13 390/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2019-20 14 391/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 15 392/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 16 Co9/Hyd/2023 Krishi Housing (P) Acit Central Circle 2017-18 (Ita 388/H/23) Ltd Hyderabad 2(2) Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B

camouflaging of total receipts as commission and hence this argument of the assessee cannot be accepted. Penalty u/s. 270A are initiated for mis-reporting of income.” 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sunshine Estateconstruction India LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 386/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 1 381/Hyd/2023 Acit Central Circle Bhoomika Agro 2020-21 2(2) Hyderabad Farms (P) Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 2 382/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 3 Co 7/Hyd/2023 Bhoomika Agro Acit Central Circle 2020-21 (Ita 381/H/23) Farms (P) Ltd 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 4 Co 8/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 382/H/23) 5 385/Hyd/2023 -Do- Sunshine Estate 2019-20 Construction India Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 6 386/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 7 387/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2022-22 8 Co3/Hyd/2023 Sunshine Estate Acit Central Circle 2019-20 (Ita 385/H/23) Construction India 2(2) Hyderabad Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 9 Co4/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 (Ita 386/H/23) 10 Co5/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 387/H/23) 11 388/Hyd/2023 -Do- Krishi Housing (P) 2017-18 Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B 12 389/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2018-19 13 390/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2019-20 14 391/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 15 392/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 16 Co9/Hyd/2023 Krishi Housing (P) Acit Central Circle 2017-18 (Ita 388/H/23) Ltd Hyderabad 2(2) Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B

camouflaging of total receipts as commission and hence this argument of the assessee cannot be accepted. Penalty u/s. 270A are initiated for mis-reporting of income.” 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sunshine Estateconstruction India LLP, Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 385/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 1 381/Hyd/2023 Acit Central Circle Bhoomika Agro 2020-21 2(2) Hyderabad Farms (P) Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 2 382/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 3 Co 7/Hyd/2023 Bhoomika Agro Acit Central Circle 2020-21 (Ita 381/H/23) Farms (P) Ltd 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 4 Co 8/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 382/H/23) 5 385/Hyd/2023 -Do- Sunshine Estate 2019-20 Construction India Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 6 386/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 7 387/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2022-22 8 Co3/Hyd/2023 Sunshine Estate Acit Central Circle 2019-20 (Ita 385/H/23) Construction India 2(2) Hyderabad Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 9 Co4/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 (Ita 386/H/23) 10 Co5/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 387/H/23) 11 388/Hyd/2023 -Do- Krishi Housing (P) 2017-18 Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B 12 389/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2018-19 13 390/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2019-20 14 391/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 15 392/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 16 Co9/Hyd/2023 Krishi Housing (P) Acit Central Circle 2017-18 (Ita 388/H/23) Ltd Hyderabad 2(2) Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B

camouflaging of total receipts as commission and hence this argument of the assessee cannot be accepted. Penalty u/s. 270A are initiated for mis-reporting of income.” 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Bhoomika Agro Farms Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 382/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 1 381/Hyd/2023 Acit Central Circle Bhoomika Agro 2020-21 2(2) Hyderabad Farms (P) Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 2 382/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 3 Co 7/Hyd/2023 Bhoomika Agro Acit Central Circle 2020-21 (Ita 381/H/23) Farms (P) Ltd 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 4 Co 8/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 382/H/23) 5 385/Hyd/2023 -Do- Sunshine Estate 2019-20 Construction India Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 6 386/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 7 387/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2022-22 8 Co3/Hyd/2023 Sunshine Estate Acit Central Circle 2019-20 (Ita 385/H/23) Construction India 2(2) Hyderabad Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 9 Co4/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 (Ita 386/H/23) 10 Co5/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 387/H/23) 11 388/Hyd/2023 -Do- Krishi Housing (P) 2017-18 Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B 12 389/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2018-19 13 390/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2019-20 14 391/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 15 392/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 16 Co9/Hyd/2023 Krishi Housing (P) Acit Central Circle 2017-18 (Ita 388/H/23) Ltd Hyderabad 2(2) Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B

camouflaging of total receipts as commission and hence this argument of the assessee cannot be accepted. Penalty u/s. 270A are initiated for mis-reporting of income.” 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Hyderabad vs. Bhoomika Agro Farms Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the Revenue

ITA 381/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 1 381/Hyd/2023 Acit Central Circle Bhoomika Agro 2020-21 2(2) Hyderabad Farms (P) Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 2 382/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 3 Co 7/Hyd/2023 Bhoomika Agro Acit Central Circle 2020-21 (Ita 381/H/23) Farms (P) Ltd 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcb6665G 4 Co 8/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 382/H/23) 5 385/Hyd/2023 -Do- Sunshine Estate 2019-20 Construction India Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 6 386/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 7 387/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2022-22 8 Co3/Hyd/2023 Sunshine Estate Acit Central Circle 2019-20 (Ita 385/H/23) Construction India 2(2) Hyderabad Llp, Hyderabad Pan:Adrfs0667D 9 Co4/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 (Ita 386/H/23) 10 Co5/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 (Ita 387/H/23) 11 388/Hyd/2023 -Do- Krishi Housing (P) 2017-18 Ltd Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B 12 389/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2018-19 13 390/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2019-20 14 391/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2020-21 15 392/Hyd/2023 -Do- -Do- 2021-22 16 Co9/Hyd/2023 Krishi Housing (P) Acit Central Circle 2017-18 (Ita 388/H/23) Ltd Hyderabad 2(2) Hyderabad Pan:Aafck9740B

camouflaging of total receipts as commission and hence this argument of the assessee cannot be accepted. Penalty u/s. 270A are initiated for mis-reporting of income.” 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before the learned CIT (A), the assessee

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

should not be levied for under reporting in respect of late payment of Employees's share of PF contribution and mis-reporting of Income in respect of education cess claimed as deduction. 3.9 In the mean while the assessee had also filed an application u/s 270AA ... 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 as well as High

Shri Gajanan Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Ajara, Kolhapur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1190/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80P

deduction of Rs.34,69,273/- u/s 80P of the Act. Subsequently, he initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act on account of mis-reporting of income to the tune of Rs.34,69,273/-. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.21

The Pondicherry State Co-Operative Consumers Federation Ltd, Pondicherry vs. PCIT-3, Chennai

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

ITA 1298/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 270ASection 80P

income and taxed accordingly. Penalty proceedings in accordance with the provisions of section 270A of the I.T. Act 1961 are also initiated for mis-reporting of income.” 4. Subsequently, the PCIT on verification of the assessment records noted that the AO has called for information but the assessee

Pranav Vikas India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1218/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath, Advocate , R.KFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Dwivedi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

facts and in law in not deleting the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 270(9) of the Act on the allegation of mis-reporting of income and in directing the AO to impose penalty at 100% of the tax payable on alleged excess claim of ineligible expenditure ... 270A(9) of the Act by way of imposing penalty of Rs. 1,09,39,526/- being 200% of tax payable for mis-reporting of income. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reduced the penalty to 100% as against 200% imposed by the AU. In support

Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 898/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Shreem Electric Limited, V The Assistant Plot No.43 To 46, S Commissioner Of Income L.K.Akiwate Industrial Tax, Estate, Jaysingpur, Shirol, Central Circle, Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416144. Pan: Aaccs4893C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak -Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 31/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.01.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Penalty Under Section 270A Of Rs.3,01,124/-. Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur[A] 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That, Since The Addition Is Made On Adhoc Basis, No Penalty Can Be Levied. 3. The Penalty Levied May Please Be Delete. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. There Is A Delay Of Two Months Of Filing Appeal Before This Tribunal. Considering The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit, We Are Convinced With The Reasons For Delay & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay.

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)

this case, Assessing Officer(AO) has levied penalty u/sec.270A of the Act of 200% on account of under-reporting in consequences of mis-reporting of income. The assessee’s case was reopened for A.Y.2017-18 for the alleged reasons that assessee had 2 Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur[A] received accommodation entry

Soma Sekhar Polavarapu, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 360/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)

record his satisfaction as to whether the penalty is initiated on account of under report, or on account under reporting consequent to mis-reporting of income, and therefore could not have levied penalty. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the adhoc disallowance made by the A.O. during

Dharmdas Sons Fruits Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4265/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 254(1)Section 260ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “D” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (JM) & Shri Girish Agrawal (AM

DCIT, Central Circle-02, Delhi, Jhandewalan vs. Otsuka Chemical India Pvt. Ltd., Abhinash Mansion

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2501/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Anup Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 28Section 9

absence of 4 Otsuka Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. provision of sub-section 9 of section 270A and only mere reference to the word mis-reporting of income in the Assessment order to deny immunity from imposition of penalty makes the impugned order manifestly arbitrary. Hence the order passed

Gurjant Singh, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. K.Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 44ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Lords Inn Hotels and Developers Private Limited, Andheri West vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3(1), Nariman Point

ITA 3615/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 44A

without appreciating that the travelling expenses disallowed were claimed as expenditure due to an inadvertent mistake and there is no mis-reporting of income. Thus, the penalty must be deleted.” Additional Grounds “The Ld. AO erred in law in imposing the penalty u/s 270A of the Income ... exclusively for the purpose of business purpose. The Assessing Officer also directed initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act for mis-reporting of income. Thereafter, notice under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act was issued to the Appellant asking the Appellant to show cause

Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle, Chandrapur

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 228/NAG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Virtually From Itat, Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 228/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, 602, Nilgiri Himalaya Empire, Phulmati Layout, Badikheda, Nagpur. Pan: Ackpk1961E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Abay Marathe [Ld. DR’]
Section 10(10)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

enhanced claim of exemption, the tax authorities levied penalty u/s 270A @ accelerated rate of 200% of tax sought to be evaded for mis-reporting of income through excess claims made in the revised ITR filed. 7. Though we are not dealing with the correctness of disallowance whereby the exemption claims

Mohd Sarwar, Raghavendra Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 238/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Mohd. Sarwar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2-8-306/12, Raghavendra Ward – 2, Nagar, Waddepalle, Karimnagar. Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana - 506370. Pan : Aoups2364F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Vamseedhar, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Mookambikeyan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri A. Vamseedhar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mookambikeyan, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 156Section 156(1)Section 250Section 270A

income and at the time of passing the impugned penalty order u/s.270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Id. A.O stated as mis-reported his income in order to collect penalty @200% instead of @ 50% of the amount of tax payable and the Id. CIT(A) erred is confirming ... accepted by the Assessing Officer then the penalty should have been levied only on account of under reporting of income and not for mis-reporting of income. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to modify the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the confirmed the ld.CIT(A) and direct

Jaina Marketing & Associates, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

Accordingly, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 226/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

word ‘under reported income’ but the penalty has been levied for ‘mis reporting of income’ and there is no whisper of allegation to ‘mis-reporting of income’ in the penalty notices. The said notice failed to state as to how the Assessee’s case/addition falls within instances given in clauses ... intended for ‘under reported income’. But the order of the penalty passed u/s 270A of the Act by the A.O. levying penalty for ‘mis-reporting of income’. The various High Courts and Benches of the Tribunal repeatedly held that the defective penalty notice issued by the Department without mentioning