Which cases are most cited on penalty under section 270A?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) — 2,590 citing judgments; CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158) — 2,228 citing judgments; CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (73 Taxmann.com 241) — 791 citing judgments; Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT (434 ITR 1) — 672 citing judgments; Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT (291 ITR 519) — 565 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss penalty under section 270A?

BharatTax indexes 523 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss penalty under section 270A (Section 270A).

← All Phrases

“penalty under section 270A”

Q: What is the leading case on penalty under section 270A?

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) is the decision most relied on for penalty under section 270A, cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax. A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

PenaltySection 270ASection 270A523 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty under section 270A is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty under section 270A

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court

791

citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT

434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court

672

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court

565

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd.

213 CTR 268 · 2007 · Supreme Court

422

citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund and ESI are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) if deposited by the assessee before the due date for filing the income tax return.

CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd.

171 Taxmann 156 · 2008 · High Court

384

citing judgments

The assessment order must clearly specify the reason for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and explicitly state whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Failure to identify the specific limb under which penalty is initiated renders the penalty unsustainable.

CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.

327 ITR 510 · 2010 · High Court

330

citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable for legally unsustainable claims if the assessee provides a substantiated, bona fide explanation without concealing facts or giving incorrect information. However, penalty is attracted if a claim is baseless, legally incorrect, and the explanation lacks bona fides.

Judgments citing penalty under section 270A

Fairchem Organics Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Cir-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6143/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarfairchem Organics Acit Circle - Limited 15(1)(1), 253/P & 312, Village Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. Chekhala, Sanand K. Road, Churchgate, Kadi Highway, Taluka Mumbai-400 020 Sanand, Distt Ahmedabad, Gujarat – 382 115. Pan/Gir No. Aadcf6900E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Ankit Tiwari, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)

grounds relating to levy of interest under sections 234B, 234C and 234D are consequential in nature. The ground relating to initiation of penalty under section 270A is premature and does not call for adjudication at this stage. 25. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced

Home Credit International A.S., Czech Republic vs. Assistantdeputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation, Gurgaon Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3846/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(8)Section 153Section 282

Home Credit International Europe 21. That the AO erred on the facts and in law in initiating penalty under Section 270A of the Act for the alleged misreporting of income without demonstrating how any of the limbs of Section 270A(9) of the Act is attracted.” At the outset, vide

Getinge Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai Maharashtra

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

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

erred in levying interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. Ground 7: Initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act The Id. AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. Brief facts of the case are as under

Shree Swati Texdyes Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2222/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 270ASection 40

retrospective effect and no mala fide could be attributed to the appellant. 02. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty under section 270A of the Act of Rs. 3,69,579 on account of disallowance of claim of Health and Education Cess of Shree Swati Texdyes ... appellant on suo moto basis on account of proposed retrospective amendment in law. 03. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty under section 270A of the Act of Rs.3,69,579 on account of disallowance of claim of Health and Education Cess of Rs.21,53,724 inasmuch

Jubilant Ingrevia Limited, Bhartiagram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Moradabad

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

ITA 5851/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjubilant Ingrevia Ltd, Vs. Acit-1, Bhartiagram Bhartia Gram, So Moradabad, Up Dhanaura, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecj6722D

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Singh, CIT DR

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 234ASection 234CSection 270A

impugned assessed income. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ACIT erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act.” Jubilant Ingrevia Ltd 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee company filed

Mehul Pravinchandra Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT, C.C 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4702/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 274

270AA(2) of the Act, the assessee filed Form No. 68 electronically on 18.06.2023 before the Ld. AO, seeking grant of immunity from penalty under section 270A of the Act. Bu the Ld. AO proceeds to impose penalty U/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved by the above, the assessee filed ... 270AA(2) of the Act, the assessee filed Form No. 68 electronically on 18.06.2023 before the Ld. AO, seeking grant of immunity from penalty under section 270A of the Act. However, without passing any order rejecting the said Form No. 68 as contemplated under the Act, the Ld. AO proceeded

Mahaveer Singh, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

Assessing Officer is, thus, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue to the extent of initiation and levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Therefore, provisions of section 263 of the Act are applicable in this case. 8. Hence, in exercise of power conferred ... directed to initiate penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act. Needless to mention the A.O. can levy penalty under section 270A of the Act or may kept in abeyance if the appeal is pending before CIT(A). Accordingly, in view of the powers entrusted to the under signed under

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax 27 1, Mumbai vs. Anil Ramchandran, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7969/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue in the quantum appeal are dismissed. 10. As regards the penalty appeal, the penalty under section 270A was initiated on the basis of the additions made in the assessment order. Since the quantum additions themselves have been deleted and we have upheld

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Anil Ramachandran, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7881/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)

Meda Lakshminarayana Setty Naveen Kumar, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1) & Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 1795/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2018-19 Mr. Meda Lakshminarayana Setty Vs. Ito, Naveen Kumar, Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Fat No.305, Bougainvilla, Sankalp Mysore. Central Park, Yadavagiri, Mysore – 570 009. Pan : Ablpn 5943 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 270A

order passed by the National faceless appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT(A)], for assessment Year 2018-19 dated 20.05.2025 wherein the penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of Rs.2,17,158/- by the penalty order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income

Dinesh Verma, Manali, Himachal Pradesh vs. ITO, ITO Ward Kullu

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 897/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, C.A (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 263Section 270A

order was passed in a routine manner without enquiry and without examining statutory consequences arising from the assessment. It was submitted that the penalty under section 270A is 4 directly linked to the determination of income and therefore failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue amounts

No.K.779.Guruvareddiyur Primary Agri Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2779/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2778 & 2779/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 K 779 Guruvareddiyur Primary Agri Co- Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Op. Credit Society, Chennampatti Main Ward 2(1), Road, Guruvareddiyur Post, Bhavani Erode. Taluk, Erode 638 504. [Pan:Aaaag1657Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 11.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Quantum Addition As Well As Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 270A

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2020-21 towards quantum addition as well as levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are similar based on the same ... reproduced at page 2 of the impugned order are one and same for both quantum addition as well as appeal against levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act except difference in period. Considering the reasonableness in belated filing of the appeal, we direct

No.K.779.Guruvareddiyur Primary Agri Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2778/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 270A

Sate Bank of India Officers Multi Purpose Co-Operative Society Orissa Limited, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 18/CTK/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 270A

considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the quantum assessment order has been set aside, the foundation for the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) no more survives. Consequently, the penalty as levied under Section 270A

Joydeep Mukherjee, Presently Residing at Usa vs. DCIT, Intl Taxation Circle 1(2), Bangalore, Bmtc Building, Koramangala

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2017/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19 Joydeep Mukherjee, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner A 202, Prestige St. Johns Woods Of Income Tax Apt., 80, St. Johns Cross Road, International Taxation, Circle 1(2), Bengaluru South 560 029. Bangalore. Pan: Aawpm 7656E

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Saravanan, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 276C

assessee has not filed any reply and has also not filed any appeal against the assessment order, the assessee is liable for penalty under section 270A of the Act. 8. With respect to the application of the assessee for rectification wherein the assessee has stated that if rectification is carried ... appellant should have paid such demand within a period specified in the order to qualify for granting of immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Act. As the assessee has not fulfilled those conditions the immunity is correctly rejected. Accordingly she confirmed the order of the penalty

DCIT Circle 5 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Blue Rock Hospitality Ventures Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whe- reas the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8097/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bakul Ganatra (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, SR. AR

Section 119Section 270A

refunds as "Business Income," whereas the Assessing Officer treated the same as "Income from Other Sources." This reclassification led to the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and examined the relevant CBDT guidelines. It is a matter of record that

Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 6680/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 270ASection 80G

submitted that the claim was inadmissible in law. It was contended that once the addition has attained finality in quantum proceedings, penalty under section 270A has been rightly levied. 16. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is clarified ... affirming penalty, has proceeded primarily on the premise that once the addition has been confirmed and the claim was inadmissible in law, penalty under section 270A follows. However, such reasoning does not sufficiently examine whether the factual ingredients of section 270A(9) are satisfied. The confirmation of addition in quantum

Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6498/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 270ASection 80G

Kotasahi Service Co-Operative Society Limited, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Cuttack

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

ITA 5/CTK/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiakotasahi Service Cooperative Society I.T.O. Limited, Ward 1(1), Vs. At Po- Kota Sahi, Via-Tangi, Cuttack. Cuttack- 754022 (Odisha) Pan No. Aaabk 0631 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 270A

NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A), NFAC/2017-18/10488081 dated 04/12/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19 confirming the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Shri P.K. Mishra with Shri Himanshu Jena, ld. A.Rs. appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh Kiroriwal

Bhikhabhai Somabhai Patel, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2597/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir VoraFor Respondent: Shri Rajkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 270ASection 57

hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the other appeal lies against order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act on the addition made to the income of the assessee in the quantum proceedings. 2. Issues involved in both the appeals being