← 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

Shri Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, Anjar Kutch vs. The Addl. CIT, NFAC, New Delhi

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

ITA 220/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 220/Rjt/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Narendra Dharamdas Gidwani, The Commissioner Of Income Vs. Plot No. 29, Survey No. 193/1, Maitru Tax(Appeals), Residency Meghpar Borichi, Anjar, National Faceless Appeal Centre Kutch, (Nfac), Delhi, Income Tax Gujarat - 370110 Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akmpg6386M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chiranjeev Tandon, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. M. Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Chiranjeev Tandon, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 269Section 269SSection 270ASection 69A

provision of Section 269SS of IT Act, accordingly, the income of the Appellant should be assessed at INR 3,00,500/- and penalty under Section 270A for underreporting of income and 271D of the IT Act for violation of Section 269SS should be imposed on the Narendra D. Gidwani wife

St. Josephs Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

ITA 3297/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aamts 3888 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

notice issued by the AO under section 274 r.w.s.270A. In abscene of any particular charge for which, the assessee is directed to pay penalty under section 270A, entire penalty proceedings become invalid and liable to be quashed. In this view of the matter, the show cause notice issued ... vogue, non-specific to charge and thus, is illegal and liable to be quashed. Thus, the order passed by the AO imposing penalty under section 270A(9) is quashed. Ground of appeal #4: PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271AAB IS OPTIONAL AND NOT MANDATORY The Ld. AO erred in levying penalty

St. Joshephs Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

ITA 3296/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. (Pan: Aamts 3888 G) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

notice issued by the AO under section 274 r.w.s.270A. In absence of any particular charge for which, the assessee is directed to pay penalty under section 270A, entire penalty proceedings become invalid and liable to be quashed. In this view of the matter, the show cause notice issued ... vogue, non-specific to charge and thus, is illegal and liable to be quashed. Thus, the order passed by the AO imposing penalty under section 270A(9) is quashed. Ground of appeal #4: PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271AAB IS OPTIONAL AND NOT MANDATORY The Ld. AO erred in levying penalty

St. Josephs Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. Dcot. Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3295/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

notice issued by the AO under section 274 r.w.s.270A. In absence of any particular charge for which, the assessee is directed to pay penalty under section 270A, entire penalty proceedings become invalid and liable to be quashed. In this view of the matter, the show cause notice issued ... vogue, non-specific to charge and thus, is illegal and liable to be quashed. Thus, the order passed by the AO imposing penalty under section 270A(9) is quashed. Ground of appeal #4: PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271AAB IS OPTIONAL AND NOT MANDATORY The Ld. AO erred in levying penalty

St. Josephs Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

ITA 3294/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aamts 3888 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

notice issued by the AO under section 274 r.w.s.270A. In absence of any particular charge for which, the assessee is directed to pay penalty under section 270A, entire penalty proceedings become invalid and liable to be quashed. In this view of the matter, the show cause notice issued ... vogue, non-specific to charge and thus, is illegal and liable to be quashed. Thus, the order passed by the AO imposing penalty under section 270A(9) is quashed. Ground of appeal #4: PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271AAB IS OPTIONAL AND NOT MANDATORY The Ld. AO erred in levying penalty

St.Josephs Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3293/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

notice issued by the AO under section 274 r.w.s.270A. In absence of any particular charge for which, the assessee is directed to pay penalty under section 270A, entire penalty proceedings become invalid and liable to be quashed. In this view of the matter, the show cause notice issued ... vogue, non-specific to charge and thus, is illegal and liable to be quashed. Thus, the order passed by the AO imposing penalty under section 270A(9) is quashed. Ground of appeal #4: PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271AAB IS OPTIONAL AND NOT MANDATORY The Ld. AO erred in levying penalty

Emerging Markets Index Non-Lendable Fund, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2073/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

Ground of Appeal No. 9: Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 7. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging misreporting of income by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add,alter,vary,omit,substitute or amend

I Shares Esg Aware Msci Em 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

ITA 2072/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

Ground of Appeal No. 9: Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 7. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging misreporting of income by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend

Emerging Markets Equity Index Master Fund, Mumbai vs. Deputy CIT (Int. Tax)-2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2040/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

Ground of Appeal No. 9: Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 7. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging misreporting of income by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add,alter,vary,omit,substitute or amend

Lokesh Sachdeva, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

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

ITA 5740/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in his order has observed as under;

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

intent being to deter the concealment of income. Given that the addition has been sustained and no further rebuttal is on record, the penalty under Section 270A stands on firm ground. 6.4 The imposition of penalty under Section 270A for misreporting aligns with judicial precedents that underscore accountability for underreporting

Anand Swarup Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(International Tax)-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 851/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 111ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)

case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in computing the interest under section 234B and section 234D of the Act. 6. Penalty under section 270A of the Act That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned AO has erred in initiating

Coursera Inc., California vs. ACIT, Circle Intl Tax-1(2)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1958/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandracoursera Inc. Vs. Acit, Circle-1(2)(1) 381, East Evelyn Avenue International Taxation, Mountain View, Civic Centre, Minto Road California United States New Delhi – 110002 Of America - 94040 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicc4141K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv, &For Respondent: Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270A

Appellant at Rs.21,38,86,563/- instead of Rs.99,91,002/-. That on facts and circumstances of the case AO erred in initiating penalty under Section 270A of the Act.” 2. The solitary issue arises is whether the DRP as well as AO is justified in treating the gross receipts

Nadeem Ahmad Khan, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 16/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 270ASection 271DSection 273BSection 274

Officer (AO). However, the AO taxed the interest on land compensation, which the assessee accepted and paid tax thereon. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty, under section 270A of the Act, on interest on land compensation. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. Hence ... dismissed the appeal. Hence, one of the appeals is before us. 5. In respect of the appeal with respect to the penalty under section 270A of the Act, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) contended that there were contradictory decisions on the issue of taxability of interest on land compensation received

Nadeen Ahmad Khan, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 15/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 270ASection 271DSection 273BSection 274

Officer (AO). However, the AO taxed the interest on land compensation, which the assessee accepted and paid tax thereon. Thereafter, the AO levied penalty, under section 270A of the Act, on interest on land compensation. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. Hence ... dismissed the appeal. Hence, one of the appeals is before us. 5. In respect of the appeal with respect to the penalty under section 270A of the Act, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) contended that there were contradictory decisions on the issue of taxability of interest on land compensation received

M/S Pazhayangadi G Gold, Kannur vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Kannur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69

section 68 of the Act. The AO further recorded the satisfaction that the income is under-reported by the assessee, and accordingly, a penalty under section 270A of the Act was initiated for under-reporting of income. 4. Subsequently, the learned PCIT issued a notice under section ... submissions of the assessee filed in response to the notice issued under section 263 of the Act and held that initiation of penalty under section 270A was under a wrong section. The learned PCIT held that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the 5 interest

Teacher Retirement System of Texas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1371/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalteacher Retirement System Of Texas, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400028 Pan: Aaatt9387R V/S Acit (It) – 4(1)(2), Kautilya Bhavan, ……………… Respondent G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 Assessee By : Shri Anish Thacker Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Soumendu K. Dash, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Anish ThackerFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu K. Dash, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234CSection 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

return of income filed by the Appellant; Initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act. 3 6. erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under reporting of income by the Appellant.” 3. The issue arising in grounds nos.1 to 4, raised in assessee’s appeal

Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, New Delhi vs. NFAC, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5111/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 35

could be termed as ‘under- reported income’ under section 270A of the Act. Accordingly, he argued that the imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Act was not justified. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the following ITAT decisions: (i) Smt. Saroj Shrivastava

Diesh Kumar Goyal, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kota

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

ITA 32/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

Tribunal ruled that- An addition made on basis of estimation cannot provide foundation for under-reported income of imposition of penalty under section 270A, therefore, where addition was made on account of estimation of GP, penalty levied under section 270A was not maintainable. for purpose 3.5 In view

Unilever India Exports Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle - 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4301/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani (SR DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 234CSection 270A

learned AO has erred in computing the interest under Section 234C of the Act while computing the assessee's total liability. Initiation of Penalty under section 270A 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AD has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under ... levy of interest under section 234C of the Act, which is consequential in nature. Ground No. 7 pertains to the imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Act, which is also consequential. Both grounds are therefore dismissed as infructuous. Ground No. 8 raises a legal issue; however, since

Milacron India Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2201/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Milacron India Pvt.Ltd. The Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Plot No.93/2 & 91/4 Vs Ahmedabad. Phase-1,Gidc Vatva, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabcc 0881 D

For Appellant: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 92BSection 92C

assessee is in appeal before us, raising multiple grounds challenging the upward adjustment of Rs.23,22,513/- and the consequential initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Following are the grounds of appeal: 1. Ground No 1 - Upward adjustment of INR 23,22,513 in respect of notional