← 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

Optiva India Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle - 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 634/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.634/Pun/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani and Ms. Ashwani NalheFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 143(3)

computations, if any. Levy of penalty 11. The Ld. AO has erred in law and in fact by issuing notice for levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income. Prayer 7 Optiva India Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, supplement

Rga International Reinsurance Company Designated Activity Company, Ireland vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax) - Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1092/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 9(1)(i)

have allowed the issue considering the merits. Ground No.13 on the issue of interest under section 234D and Ground No.15 on levy of penalty under section 270A are consequential not warranting any separate adjudication. Ground No.14 pertaining to 244A interest is remitted back to the AO with a direction

D S Trading, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271A

considering the outstanding receivables falling within section 92(B) of the Act as a capital financing transaction. 4. Ground No 4 - Initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act 4.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/Hon

Schwab Fundamental Emerging Markets Equity Ety, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2133/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Gandhi; Shri Lekh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar
Section 111ASection 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

jurisdictional Tribunal. Ground of Appeal No. 2: Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 5. The learned DCIT erred in initiating penalty under section 270A 2 Assessment Year 2022-2023 of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant.” Ground No.1 to 4: 3. The relevant

Sardar Dastur Schools Trust, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pmt Building, Swargate, Pune

ITA 1137/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1137/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sardar Dastur Schools Trust, 3 Lt Col Tarapore Road, Camp, Pune – 411001. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaats4768F Appellant/ Assessee V The Dy.Commissioner Of S. Income Tax Exemption, Pune. Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2025 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(Appeals) [Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.02.2025 For A.Y.2017-18 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 18.01.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 11(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(10)(c)

under section 270A of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has underreported the income. 2. Ground 2: Levy of Penalty under section 270A of the Act is invalid since the tax payable in respect of under-reported income Is Nil In the facts and circumstances of the case ... Underreporting of Income In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act, without appreciating that the difference in the gross receipts as per the return of income and the Income and Expenditure

Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-8(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for the reasons mentioned above

ITA 2810/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai(Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Am)

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta &
Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 270A

profit and loss account is non-taxable. 2. Ground No. 2&3 relate to interest income unreconciled with 26AS statement and initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act are not pressed by Ld. AR of the appellant company during the hearing before the ITAT and hence not adjudicated

Employees Retirement System of Texas, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2155/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish ThackarFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

234C of the Act amounting to INR 3,50,285, Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 9. Erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant.” Assessment Year 2022-2023 Ground No.1 to 6: 3. The relevant facts ... section 234C of the Act amounting to INR 43,100. Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 8. Erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant.” 23. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a trust

Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II Strategic Advisers Emerging Markets Fund, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2127/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
For Respondent: Shri Anish Thackar
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

234C of the Act amounting to INR 3,50,285, 9. Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. Erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant.” 4. Ground No.1 to 6: The relevant facts in brief are that ... section 234C of the Act amounting to INR 43,100. 8. Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. Erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant.” 23. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a trust

Fidelity Salem Street Trust Fidelity Sai Emerging Markets Index Fund, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2126/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish ThackarFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70Section 70(2)

234C of the Act amounting to INR 3,50,285, Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 9. Erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant.” Assessment Year 2022-2023 Ground No.1 to 6: 3. The relevant facts ... section 234C of the Act amounting to INR 43,100. Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 8. Erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant.” 23. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a trust

Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II Strategic Advisers Fid Emg Markets Fund, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2125/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 70(2)

section 234C of the Act amounting to INR 3,50,285, Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. Erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant.” 4 ITA No. 2125, 2126, 2127 & 2155/Mum/2025 Assessment Year ... under section 234C of the Act amounting to INR 43,100. Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. Erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant.” 23. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a trust

Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Etf(As A Successor to Ishares Msci All Country Asia Ex Japan Mauritius Co), Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2154/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

erred in granting TDS credit to Rs.236,926. Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 9. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging misreporting of income by the Appellant." 2. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee's appeal ... 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 357,020; Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 16. Erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging underreporting of income by the Appellant.” 44. Ground no.1 is general in nature. Therefore, the same needs no specific

Ishares Msci India Etf(As A Sucessor to Ishares India Index Maruitius Company), Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2153/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

erred in granting TDS credit to Rs. 236,926. Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 9. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging misreporting of income by the Appellant.” 2. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee ... Ground of Appeal No. 3: Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 10. The learned DCIT erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant. 37. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee’s appeal

Ishares Core Msci Em Imi Ucits Etf, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Int)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2152/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

erred in granting TDS credit to Rs.236,926. Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 9. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging misreporting of income by the Appellant." 2. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee's appeal ... Ground of Appeal No. 3: Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 10. The learned DCIT erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant. 37. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee's appeal

Ishares Core Msci Total International Stock Etf (As A Successor to Ishares Core Total International Stock Mauritius Co ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2151/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

erred in granting TDS credit to Rs. 236,926. Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 9. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging misreporting of income by the Appellant.” 2. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee ... Ground of Appeal No. 3: Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 10. The learned DCIT erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant. 37. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee’s appeal

Ishares Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Successor to Ishares Emerging Markets Index Mauritius Co ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2150/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

erred in granting TDS credit to Rs.236,926. Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 9. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging misreporting of income by the Appellant." 2. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee's appeal ... 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 357,020; Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 16. Erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging underreporting of income by the Appellant.” 44. Ground no.1 is general in nature. Therefore, the same needs no specific

Ishares India 50 Etf (As A Successor to Ishares India Mauritius Co ), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2149/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

erred in granting TDS credit to Rs.236,926. Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 9. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging misreporting of income by the Appellant." 2. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee's appeal ... Ground of Appeal No. 3: Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 10. The learned DCIT erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant. 37. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee's appeal

Ishares Msci Em Ucits Etf Usd Dist, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2148/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

erred in granting TDS credit to Rs. 236,926. Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 9. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging misreporting of income by the Appellant.” 2. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee ... Ground of Appeal No. 3: Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 10. The learned DCIT erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant. 37. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee’s appeal

Ishares Msci India Ucits Etf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2147/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

erred in granting TDS credit to Rs. 236,926. Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 9. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging misreporting of income by the Appellant.” 2. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee ... Ground of Appeal No. 3: Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 10. The learned DCIT erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant. 37. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee’s appeal

Schwab Emerging Markets Equity Etf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2134/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

erred in granting TDS credit to Rs.236,926. Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 9. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging misreporting of income by the Appellant." 2. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee's appeal ... 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 357,020; Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 16. Erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging underreporting of income by the Appellant.” 44. Ground no.1 is general in nature. Therefore, the same needs no specific

Ishares Core Msci Emerging Markets Etf (As A Sucessor to Ishares Core Emerging Markets Mauritius Company), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2085/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

erred in granting TDS credit to Rs.236,926. Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 9. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging misreporting of income by the Appellant." 2. The issue arising in grounds no.1 to 4, raised in assessee's appeal ... 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 357,020; Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 16. Erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging underreporting of income by the Appellant.” 44. Ground no.1 is general in nature. Therefore, the same needs no specific