← 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

Gallagher Service Center LLP (Formerly Known As Gallagher Operations Support Services P Ltd), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the Ground Number 6 is Partly Allowed for Statistical purpose

ITA 679/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.679/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gallagher Services Center V Additional/Joint Llp, S Commissioner Of Income 401, Delta 2, Gigaspace It Tax. Park, Vimannagar, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaqfg7417F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M.P.Lohia – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Of Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 15.07.2022 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Appellant Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 253(1)(d)

differences between the functional and risk profile of comparable companies vis-à-vis the risk profile of the Appellant. Erroneous levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act 8. erred in proposing to levy penalty under section 270A of the Act, without considering the fact that adjustment to returned

Ab Sciex Pte. Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 804/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44B

total tax liability. Ground 13: On the facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under-reporting of income by the appellant.” 4. Suffice to say, both the parties are very much ad idem during

Vikram Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-18(5), Chennai

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

ITA 311/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 310 & 311/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vikram Reddy, Income Tax Officer, 202, Lotus Serviced Apartments Vs. Non Corporate Ward - 18(5), 15, Venkataraman Street, Chennai. Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aqzpv5520B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 69

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 9. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Since the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Act has :-5-: ITA. Nos:310 & 311/Chny/2025 ... have remitted the quantum addition to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication in accordance with law, the levy of penalty under section 270A is also remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after deciding the quantum addition on merits. Thus, the grounds

Vikram Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-18(5), Chennai

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

ITA 310/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 310 & 311/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vikram Reddy, Income Tax Officer, 202, Lotus Serviced Apartments Vs. Non Corporate Ward - 18(5), 15, Venkataraman Street, Chennai. Thiyagaraya Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aqzpv5520B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 69

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 9. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Since the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Act has :-5-: ITA. Nos:310 & 311/Chny/2025 ... have remitted the quantum addition to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication in accordance with law, the levy of penalty under section 270A is also remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after deciding the quantum addition on merits. Thus, the grounds

M/S G M Builders, Mumbai vs. PCIT(Mumbai), Old-ACIT Circle-22(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2192/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailm/S. G M Builders, 115, Veena Beena Shipping Center, Turner Road, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400050 Pan – Aaafg1872G ……………. Appellant

For Appellant: Share Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 270A

hold back the return of income, the assessee submitted that there was bona fide explanation, which does not justify levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 9. The learned PCIT, vide impugned order, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that the AO did not initiate ... notice dated 04/03/2024 issued under section 263 of the Act, however, all of them were dropped except the issue of levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that the case of the assessee falls within the bona fide explanation under section 270A

Dosti Corporation (Pinnacle), Mumbai vs. The Income Tax, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6410/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No

Pranam Enterprise, Junagadh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.391/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pranam Enterprise Vs. The Dcit Office No.3, City Centre, Opp. Circle-1(1), Rajkot New Collector Office, Junagadh – 362001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffp7926H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274Section 80I

records of the case including the paper book filed by the assessee. The key issue that arises for consideration is whether the penalty under section 270A(8) of the Act, can be levied, when the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, in the previous year ... have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 10. The issue for consideration before us is that whether penalty under Section 270A of the Act can be levied in the instant set of facts, when as per the assessee, she was under the genuine belief that since

S Ramesh, Trunelveli vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3173/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

similar case (CIT vs. Madan Theatres Ltd.) that penalty cannot be imposed based on a deemed value higher than the actual price. The penalty under Section 270A cannot be based on estimates, as per the ITAT Ahmedabad decision in the case of Dipakumar Ishwarlal Panchal and the ITAT Pune ruling ... issues with Settlement commission. Hence, the penalty is unlawful that too based on deeming provisions. Therefore, it is requested that the penalty under Section 270A be deleted and render justice” 7. The learned AR submitted that issue in question is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. It was submitted

S Ashok, Tirunelvel vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3172/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

similar case (CIT vs. Madan Theatres Ltd.) that penalty cannot be imposed based on a deemed value higher than the actual price. The penalty under Section 270A cannot be based on estimates, as per the ITAT Ahmedabad decision in the case of Dipakumar Ishwarlal Panchal and the ITAT Pune ruling ... issues with Settlement commission. Hence, the penalty is unlawful that too based on deeming provisions. Therefore, it is requested that the penalty under Section 270A be deleted and render justice” 7. The learned AR submitted that issue in question is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. It was submitted

S Murugesh, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3171/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

similar case (CIT vs. Madan Theatres Ltd.) that penalty cannot be imposed based on a deemed value higher than the actual price. The penalty under Section 270A cannot be based on estimates, as per the ITAT Ahmedabad decision in the case of Dipakumar Ishwarlal Panchal and the ITAT Pune ruling ... issues with Settlement commission. Hence, the penalty is unlawful that too based on deeming provisions. Therefore, it is requested that the penalty under Section 270A be deleted and render justice” 7. The learned AR submitted that issue in question is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. It was submitted

S Magesh, Tirunelveli vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3170/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

similar case (CIT vs. Madan Theatres Ltd.) that penalty cannot be imposed based on a deemed value higher than the actual price. The penalty under Section 270A cannot be based on estimates, as per the ITAT Ahmedabad decision in the case of Dipakumar Ishwarlal Panchal and the ITAT Pune ruling ... issues with Settlement commission. Hence, the penalty is unlawful that too based on deeming provisions. Therefore, it is requested that the penalty under Section 270A be deleted and render justice” 7. The learned AR submitted that issue in question is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. It was submitted

S. Pothyraj, Tiunelveli vs. DCIT, Central Circle01(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3169/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(vii)

similar case (CIT vs. Madan Theatres Ltd.) that penalty cannot be imposed based on a deemed value higher than the actual price. The penalty under Section 270A cannot be based on estimates, as per the ITAT Ahmedabad decision in the case of Dipakumar Ishwarlal Panchal and the ITAT Pune ruling ... issues with Settlement commission. Hence, the penalty is unlawful that too based on deeming provisions. Therefore, it is requested that the penalty under Section 270A be deleted and render justice” 7. The learned AR submitted that issue in question is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. It was submitted

Clean Foods Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2368/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, CA & Smt. LakshmiFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

proceeding ex-parte without granting a proper opportunity of hearing. The assessee has raised substantive grounds of appeal, particularly on the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act, arguing that a bona fide legal claim in the return of income does not amount to misreporting. In our considered

Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Sultanpur, Tal. Gondal, Dist. Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 697/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.492 & 493 & 697/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2020-21) Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahkari Assessment Unit, Nfac Mandali Ltd. (Present Juris. Acit-Dcit Vs. Cir-1(1) Sultanpur, At Sultanpur Tal: Gondal, Dist. It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot – 364470 Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaabs0194F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Pad Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

tune of Rs. 18,51,445/- and Rs. 12,16,576/-, respectfully, and appeal in ITA No.697/RJT/2024 relates to penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. The appeals in ITA No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2024, and in ITA No.697/RJT/2024, filed for Assessment Years

Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd, Rajkot vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC (Present Juris. ACIT-DCIT Cir 1(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 493/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.492 & 493 & 697/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2020-21) Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahkari Assessment Unit, Nfac Mandali Ltd. (Present Juris. Acit-Dcit Vs. Cir-1(1) Sultanpur, At Sultanpur Tal: Gondal, Dist. It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot – 364470 Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaabs0194F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Pad Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

tune of Rs. 18,51,445/- and Rs. 12,16,576/-, respectfully, and appeal in ITA No.697/RJT/2024 relates to penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. The appeals in ITA No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2024, and in ITA No.697/RJT/2024, filed for Assessment Years

Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd, Rajkot vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC (Present Juris. ACIT-Dict Cir 1(1) Rajkot), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.492 & 493 & 697/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2020-21) Sultanpur Juth Seva Sahkari Assessment Unit, Nfac Mandali Ltd. (Present Juris. Acit-Dcit Vs. Cir-1(1) Sultanpur, At Sultanpur Tal: Gondal, Dist. It Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, Vatiaka, Rajkot – 364470 Rajkot - 360001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaabs0194F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Pad Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

tune of Rs. 18,51,445/- and Rs. 12,16,576/-, respectfully, and appeal in ITA No.697/RJT/2024 relates to penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act 1961. 4. The appeals in ITA No. 492 & 493/Rjt/2024, and in ITA No.697/RJT/2024, filed for Assessment Years

Dileep Kumar Ojha, Sitapur vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 453/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69C

Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 and also regarding penalty under section 270A of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18 to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass denovo orders, if, deemed fit, after passing the aforesaid denovo

Priti Mishra, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 90/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

Section 250Section 270(6)Section 270A

NFAC under section 250 of the Act, passed on 29.03.2024 dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act. The grounds of appeal preferred are as under:- I.T.A.No.90/Alld/2024 2 “1. BECAUSE the learned CIT(A) has erred

Rajendra Shivaji Thete, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2431/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajendra Shivaji Thete, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Shivanjali, Plot No.25, H.No.4669, Shivaji Nagar, Ozar Mig, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Abwpt0060C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai : 09.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs. 1,49,704/- On The Ground That The Assesse Had Under Reporting Of Income In Consequence Of Misreporting Of Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 148Section 270A

section 270A(9) of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following ITAT Pune and ITAT Mumbai decisions the AO is directed to delete the penalty under section 270A of the Act. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.” 8. We further find that apart from above decision the Coordinate

Prashant Balasaheb Kage, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2021/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(8)

section 270A(9) of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following ITAT Pune and ITAT Mumbai decisions the AO is directed to delete the penalty under section 270A of the Act. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.” 8. Respectfully following the above decision passed by the Coordinate Bench