“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

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Additional /Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4156/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

assessee raised ground in both AY 2014-15 and AY 2018-19 with regard to interest under section 234B & 234C and penalty under section 270A of the Act. These grounds are consequential and does not warrant separate adjudication. 37. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4154/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

M/S the Presidency Club, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.222/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. M/S. The Presidency Club, The Dcit, 51, Fairlawns, Ethiraj Salai, Corporate Circle-3(1), Egmore, Chennai. Chennai-600 008. [Pan: Aabct 1001 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

cause notices, issued subsequently on 17.03.2021 and 18.08.2021 which are placed on records, the assessee was required to show cause as to why penalty under section 270A of the Act may not be imposed. In response, the assessee filed its reply on 03.09.2021. Vide the said reply, besides claiming

Sekhon Jagtar Singh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1104/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharankantha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)Section 274

underreporting of income in pursuance to the provisions of section 270A(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO proposed to levy the penalty under section 270A of the Act on account of underreporting of income by issuing a show cause notice under section 274 of the Act. The assessee

ACIT Circle-16(1), Delhi vs. Mahashian Di Hatti Private Limited, Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1484/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhasstt. Yr: 2017-18

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 44A

aspect of merging GST Input Credit with expenses and same was suo-moto surrendered by assessee by revising its return, however revenue imposed penalty under section 270A and thereafter, rejected application of assessee under section 270AA, since revenue wasn't sure whether it was a case of misrepresentation or suppression ... misrepresentation of suppression of facts, as all the relevant and material facts were already on record. Therefore, the action of AO in levying penalty under section 270A (8) at the rate of 200 percent of tax payable on under-reported income is not sustained. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer

Income Tax Office Ward -1 Sonepat, Sonepat, Haryana vs. Om Minirals, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(10)(c)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(3)(ii)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, Sh

Nord Anglia Education Limited, United Kingdom vs. DCIT Intl. Taxation Circle 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2385/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 270A

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/DRP has erred in initiating the penalty under section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income without appreciating the fact that there is no under-reporting of income by the Appellant

Multanmull Kishanlal & Sons, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 40, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 991/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 270A

said provision. However, in our view, it is not 3 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Multanmull Kishanlal & Sons a case of levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act and the same is accordingly deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced

Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 898/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Shreem Electric Limited, V The Assistant Plot No.43 To 46, S Commissioner Of Income L.K.Akiwate Industrial Tax, Estate, Jaysingpur, Shirol, Central Circle, Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416144. Pan: Aaccs4893C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak -Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 31/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.01.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Penalty Under Section 270A Of Rs.3,01,124/-. Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur[A] 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That, Since The Addition Is Made On Adhoc Basis, No Penalty Can Be Levied. 3. The Penalty Levied May Please Be Delete. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. There Is A Delay Of Two Months Of Filing Appeal Before This Tribunal. Considering The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit, We Are Convinced With The Reasons For Delay & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay.

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)

dated 31.01.2024 for the A.Y.2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty under section 270A of Rs.3,01,124/-. Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur[A] 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, since the addition is made

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Diamond Company Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 166/Mum/2024 is dismissed

ITA 166/MUM/2024[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (All.CIT) SR DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(8)

aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). the ld.CIT(A) quashed the penalty order by finding the lacunae in imposition of penalty under section 270A. Being aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Both the parties have argued together, and matter heard. 4. We heard

R1 Rcm Holdco Inc. (Formerly Known As R1 Rcm Inc.), Usa vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2044/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 92C

High Court in the case of Shin Satellite (supra). 7. On the facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating the penalty under section 270A of the Act. a. The Ld. AO erred in initiating the penalty under section 270A for under- reporting of income in consequence

Bticino S.P.A, Italy vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation-1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2294/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 270A

Appellant to Novateur India was transferred outside India and the payments have been received outside India. 4. Ground in relating to Penalty under section 270A The Learned AD/ DRP has erred on the facts and in law in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act against

Sri. Gujjappa, N, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 648/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274

assessment proceedings to the extent of ₹ 3,98,806.00, we find that the assessee has misreported the income which is liable to the penalty under section 270A of the Act. Even at the time of hearing, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has not brought any cogent

Rajneesh Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre

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

ITA 1578/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kala, A/R (appeared virtually)For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 270A

234D of the Act. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act.” 3. The sum and substances of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing

Ravindra Bhagwan Potdar, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Nashik

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

ITA 647/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274

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.” 11. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision passed by a Coordinate

Asstt. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle Pune, P.M.T Building Swargate Pune vs. Kedari Redekar Shikshan Sanstha Gadhinglaj, Gadhinglaj

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 559/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati

Section 12ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 80G

penalty u/s. 270A. The AO concluded that the assessee indulged in under- reporting income due to misreporting by claiming wrong capital expenditure. The penalty under Section 270A is levied at 200% of the tax payable on the under-reported income. Tax payable on the under-reported income of Rs.1

Tek Systems Global Services Private Limited, Hyderbad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderbad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 487/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Ms. K. Amulya, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 270A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act by wrongly alleging that there is under reporting of income by the Appellant. 15. The appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief

Dara Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3697/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2019-20 With Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sh. Dara Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 270, Village & Post Ward-1(4), –Khandsa, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan :Fhdps0289C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 270ASection 28Section 57

addition made in the assessment order, which got subsequently confirmed by the first appellate authority, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Alleging non-compliance of the assessee to the show-cause notices, the Assessing Officer proceeded to impose penalty under section

Dara Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3696/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Section 10(37)Section 144Section 270ASection 28Section 57

Sagar Subhash Wedhane, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

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

ITA 191/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.191/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sagar Subhash Wedhane, Vs. Ito, Nashik. 75, Midc, Bosch Limited, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aavpw1338A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.01.2024 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 Cit Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,61,548/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Under-Reporting In Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: Smt. Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)

section 270A(9) of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following ITAT Pune and ITAT Mumbai 9 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.” 11. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision passed