← All Phrases

“penalty under section 270A”

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

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada vs. Eswara Prasad Nadipalli, Vijayawada

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270A

detailed order by relying on various judicial pronouncement has held that the Ld. AO is not justified in imposing penalty under section 270A of the Act since the assessee was prevented with bonafide cause for non-filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Further ... also observed that there is no difference between returned income and the assessed income attracting the provisions of levying penalty under section 270A for under-reporting of income. We are in agreement with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and hence no interference in the order

Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

ITA 294/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Venkateswara Nagar Syamalanagar East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh V. Acit - Circle – 1 Ayakkar Bhawan Veerabadhrapuram Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh V. Acit - Circle – 1 Ayakkar Bhawan Veerabadhrapuram Rajahmundry - 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Smt Hemalatha K, Ca Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 05.08.2025 22.08.2025

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

after examining the assessment records found that the assessee has under-reported the income to the extent of Rs.19,64,730/- which attracts penalty under section 270A of the Act of Rs.2,49,991/- excluding interest. He further observed that the Ld. AO omitted to initiate the penalty under section

Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 293/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

after examining the assessment records found that the assessee has under-reported the income to the extent of Rs.19,64,730/- which attracts penalty under section 270A of the Act of Rs.2,49,991/- excluding interest. He further observed that the Ld. AO omitted to initiate the penalty under section ... this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings did not initiate the penalty under section 270A of the Act. She vehemently argued that the failure of the Ld. AO to initiate the penalty proceedings cannot make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohan Rao Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Cirlce - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

after examining the assessment records found that the assessee has under-reported the income to the extent of Rs.19,64,730/- which attracts penalty under section 270A of the Act of Rs.2,49,991/- excluding interest. He further observed that the Ld. AO omitted to initiate the penalty under section ... this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings did not initiate the penalty under section 270A of the Act. She vehemently argued that the failure of the Ld. AO to initiate the penalty proceedings cannot make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

after examining the assessment records found that the assessee has under-reported the income to the extent of Rs.19,64,730/- which attracts penalty under section 270A of the Act of Rs.2,49,991/- excluding interest. He further observed that the Ld. AO omitted to initiate the penalty under section ... this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings did not initiate the penalty under section 270A of the Act. She vehemently argued that the failure of the Ld. AO to initiate the penalty proceedings cannot make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial

Koshambh Multitred Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR
Section 155(18)Section 250Section 270A(2)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(9)Section 40

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21 confirming the levy of penalty under Section 270A(2) of the Act for underreporting of income. 2. The facts of the case are that in assessment proceedings the assessee was noted ... surrendered the said claim for disallowance .That therefore, the assessee could not be charged with having underreported any income for levy of penalty under section 270A(2) of the Act. He further referred to the provisions of Section Koshambh Multitred Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 532/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas the appeals pertaining to 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Since the identical facts and common issues involved in all these appeals and the appeals were heard together ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment ... separate orders passed by the CIT(A), each dated 30/06/2025, whereby Assessee’s appeal against the Penalty Orders each dated 04/03/2025 levying penalty under Section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Years 2018-2019 and 2020-2021, respectively, was dismissed. 16. During the course of hearing, both the sides

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road, Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 531/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas the appeals pertaining to 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Since the identical facts and common issues involved in all these appeals and the appeals were heard together ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment ... separate orders passed by the CIT(A), each dated 30/06/2025, whereby Assessee’s appeal against the Penalty Orders each dated 04/03/2025 levying penalty under Section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Years 2018-2019 and 2020-2021, respectively, was dismissed. 16. During the course of hearing, both the sides

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 530/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas the appeals pertaining to 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Since the identical facts and common issues involved in all these appeals and the appeals were heard together ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment ... separate orders passed by the CIT(A), each dated 30/06/2025, whereby Assessee’s appeal against the Penalty Orders each dated 04/03/2025 levying penalty under Section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Years 2018-2019 and 2020-2021, respectively, was dismissed. 16. During the course of hearing, both the sides

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road, Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 529/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas the appeals pertaining to 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Since the identical facts and common issues involved in all these appeals and the appeals were heard together ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment ... separate orders passed by the CIT(A), each dated 30/06/2025, whereby Assessee’s appeal against the Penalty Orders each dated 04/03/2025 levying penalty under Section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Years 2018-2019 and 2020-2021, respectively, was dismissed. 16. During the course of hearing, both the sides

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, M G Road Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 528/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas the appeals pertaining to 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Since the identical facts and common issues involved in all these appeals and the appeals were heard together ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment ... separate orders passed by the CIT(A), each dated 30/06/2025, whereby Assessee’s appeal against the Penalty Orders each dated 04/03/2025 levying penalty under Section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Years 2018-2019 and 2020-2021, respectively, was dismissed. 16. During the course of hearing, both the sides

Pannivizha Service Cooperative Bank Ltd 891, Mg Road Pannivizha vs. ITO, Ward 2, Kollam

In the result, ITA No. 531/Coch/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) and ITA No

ITA 527/COCH/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri K. Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas the appeals pertaining to 2018-2019 & 2020-2021 challenge the levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. Since the identical facts and common issues involved in all these appeals and the appeals were heard together ITA Nos.527-532/Coch/2025 Assessment ... separate orders passed by the CIT(A), each dated 30/06/2025, whereby Assessee’s appeal against the Penalty Orders each dated 04/03/2025 levying penalty under Section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Years 2018-2019 and 2020-2021, respectively, was dismissed. 16. During the course of hearing, both the sides

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

from CTPL. pursuant to slump sale, which is eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) r.w.s. 2(11) of the Act. Initiation of penalty under Section 270A for under- reporting in consequence of mis-reporting for the proposed adjustments 9. Erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section

Hasmukhlal Ishvarlal Patel, Patan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patan

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

ITA 764/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270A

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. AO made an addition based on the difference in Long Term Capital Gain between the original and revised returns without properly

Hasmukhlal Ishvarlal Patel, Patan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Patan

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

ITA 763/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270A

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. AO made an addition based on the difference in Long Term Capital Gain between the original and revised returns without properly

Tfdac Ireland II Limited, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 4(1)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1198/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under section 270A read with section 274 of the Act; (i) Whether an incorrect rate of tax has been applied; and (j) Whether the same income

Dae(Sy22) Leasing (Ireland)41, Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1157/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under section 270A read with section 274 of the Act; (i) Whether an incorrect rate of tax has been applied; and (j) Whether the same income

Dae (Sabs) Leasing Ireland 43 Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax.Circle 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

ITA 1156/MUM/2025[2022-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-22
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under section 270A read with section 274 of the Act; (i) Whether an incorrect rate of tax has been applied; and (j) Whether the same income

Dae (Sabs) 10296 Ireland Designated Activity Company, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation), Cirlce 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed and

ITA 1155/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under Section 270A read with Section 274 of the Act; (i) Whether an incorrect rate of tax has been applied; and (j) Whether the same income

Sky High Xliii Leasing Company Limited, Ireland vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Int Tax Circle 4 (2) (1) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1122/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

otherwise of a Permanent Establishment (“PE”) in India; (g) Levy of interest under sections 234A and/or 234B; (h) Initiation and levy of penalty under section 270A read with section 274 of the Act; 6 ITA No.1198/Mum/2025 and others (i) Whether an incorrect rate of tax has been applied