← 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

Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2140/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2140/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Santosh Ashokrao Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Barhanpurkar, Flat No.B-8, Deepali Appt., Near Bus Stop Mahatmangar, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aawpb8671N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.07.2024 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. 1,15,938/- On The Ground That The Assesse Had Under-Reported As A Consequence Of Misreporting Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
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. Respectfully following the above decision passed by the Coordinate Bench

Government of Singapore, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Internationl Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4515/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Been Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrigovernment Of Singapore V/S. Dcit (It) – 2(3)(2), C/O Ernst & Young Llp, बनाम Mumbai 17Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, 1711, 17Th Floor, Air Senapati, Bapat Marg, India Building, Nariman Dadar(W), Point, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajg0594R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Ms. Danish TrangadiaFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani
Section 111ASection 112Section 112ASection 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234Section 234A

Ground of Appeal No. 11: Initiation of penal proceedings under section 270A of the Act 11. Erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act alleging under- reporting of income by the Appellant.” 3. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had applied for resolution

Rajendra Shyamkant Shivrame, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2 (1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 936/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
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.” 10. Respectfully following the above decision passed by the Coordinate Bench

Rajendra Shyamkant Shivrame, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 935/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
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.” 10. Respectfully following the above decision passed by the Coordinate Bench

Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2132/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 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 271(1)(c)

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.” 15. Respectfully following the above decisions passed by the Coordinate Bench

Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2131/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2131 & 2132/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Santosh Ashokrao Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Barhanpurkar, Flat No.B-8, Deepali Appt., Near Bus Stop Mahatmanagar, Nashik- 422007. Pan: Aawpb8671N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2131/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2016-17.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

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. Respectfully following the above decisions passed by the Coordinate Bench

Krishna Gopal Saraf, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC- 28, New Delhi

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

ITA 4564/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri J. N. Shukla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271ASection 274Section 69Section 69ASection 80P

Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Id. AO’). These two appeals preferred by the assessee are challenging the levy of penalty under section 270A and 271AAC of the Act for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available ... 270A(9)(c ) read with section 274 of the Act for underreporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting of income. Accordingly, penalty under section 270A was levied in the sum of Rs. 1,06,83,400/- at the rate of 200% of underreporting of income in consequence

Vectus Industries Ltd., Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned NFAC was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials ... with provisions of section 270AA of the Act. Since the Form No. 68 was filed belatedly by 3 days, the learned AO levied penalty under section 270A of the Act on the assessee. 9. From the above, it could be seen that the Assessee Company had substantially complied with

Vectus Industries Ltd., Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned NFAC was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials ... with provisions of section 270AA of the Act. Since the Form No. 68 was filed belatedly by 3 days, the learned AO levied penalty under section 270A of the Act on the assessee. 9. From the above, it could be seen that the Assessee Company had substantially complied with

Vectus Industries Ltd., Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned NFAC was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials ... with provisions of section 270AA of the Act. Since the Form No. 68 was filed belatedly by 3 days, the learned AO levied penalty under section 270A of the Act on the assessee. 9. From the above, it could be seen that the Assessee Company had substantially complied with

Siroya Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5809/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Rajpurohit, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 43C

dated 15.04.2021. Similarly there was a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal against the order of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 3. The assessee filed a common petition for condonation of delay in filing both the appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed

Siroya Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5808/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Rajpurohit, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 43C

dated 15.04.2021. Similarly there was a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal against the order of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 3. The assessee filed a common petition for condonation of delay in filing both the appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed

Samarthan Centre for Development Support, Bhopal vs. DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 404/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2018-19 Samarthan Centre For Dcit (Exemption) Development Support, Bhopal 36, Green Venue, बनाम/ Kolar Road Huzur, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaats3998P Assessee By Shri Pradeep Ambastha & Ashish Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270A

objectivities performed by the appellant trust/deductee. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind

Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings, Llc, Mauritius vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 3097/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 115JSection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 270ASection 274

different source and claimed as exempt under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA'). 2. Erroneous initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act - On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings

Ch Lekh Raj Educational and Charitable Trust, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-2, Chandigarh

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

ITA 764/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri B.M.Monga and Shri Rohit Kaura, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 270ASection 5

dated 14.05.2024 passed in assessment year 2018-19 (ITA No.763/CHD/2024). This appeal has arisen against a proceeding for visiting the assessee with penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. 2. A perusal of the record would reveal that facts in all these appeals are common. Therefore, we took

Ch Lekh Raj Educational and Charitable Trust, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-2, Chandigarh

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

ITA 763/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri B.M.Monga and Shri Rohit Kaura, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 270ASection 5

dated 14.05.2024 passed in assessment year 2018-19 (ITA No.763/CHD/2024). This appeal has arisen against a proceeding for visiting the assessee with penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. 2. A perusal of the record would reveal that facts in all these appeals are common. Therefore, we took

Ch Lekh Raj Educational and Charitable Trust, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-2, Chandigarh

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed

ITA 730/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri B.M.Monga and Shri Rohit Kaura, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 270ASection 5

dated 14.05.2024 passed in assessment year 2018-19 (ITA No.763/CHD/2024). This appeal has arisen against a proceeding for visiting the assessee with penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. 2. A perusal of the record would reveal that facts in all these appeals are common. Therefore, we took

Shiva Speciality Yarns Ltd., Ludhiana vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Ludhiana

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1049/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CA and Ms. Naina Gaba Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80

this order alongwith the other facts available on the record before deciding the issue whether assessee deserves to be visited with any penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide the appeal within five months on receipt of this order on or bring

M/S. Mono Steel (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 285/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balwani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 80

dated 29.11.2019, but since the appeal effect against such order had not yet been received and the penalty order was getting time barred, penalty under Section 270A of the Act was determined on the additions made in the assessment order. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty ... account of non-appearance. 6. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 270A of the Act. This is for the reason that firstly Ld. CIT(A) has itself in the quantum order for the impugned assessment

M/S. Mono Steel (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 284/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balwani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER