“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

Ibm Japan Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 492/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

under section 139 of the Act (for AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17). 4.3 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 270A of the Act 4.3.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'under reported income which is in consequence ... misreporting’ by not filing a return within the timelines stipulated under section 139 of the Act and hence liable to penalty under section 270A of the Act (for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20). 4.3.2 As discussed above, in concluding so the AO has provided a blanket statement

Ibm Canada Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 491/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271(1)(c)

Ibm Canada Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 490/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

under section 139 of the Act (for AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17). 4.3 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 270A of the Act 4.3.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘under reported income which is in consequence ... misreporting’ by not filing a return within the timelines stipulated under section 139 of the Act and hence liable to penalty under section 270A of the Act (for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20). 4.3.2 As discussed above, in concluding so the AO has provided a blanket statement

Ibm Canada Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 489/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

under section 139 of the Act (for AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17). 4.3 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 270A of the Act 4.3.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'under reported income which is in consequence ... misreporting' by not filing a return within the timelines stipulated under section 139 of the Act and hence liable to penalty under section 270A of the Act (for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20). 4.3.2 As discussed above, in concluding so the AO has provided a blanket statement

Ibm Australia Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 488/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

under section 139 of the Act (for AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17). 4.3 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 270A of the Act 4.3.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'under reported income which is in consequence ... misreporting' by not filing a return within the timelines stipulated under section 139 of the Act and hence liable to penalty under section 270A of the Act (for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20). 4.3.2 As discussed above, in concluding so the AO has provided a blanket statement

Ibm Australia Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 487/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 372/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 371 & 372/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Tower-C Vs Dlf, It Park-I 08 Majore Arterial Road New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaecv9657M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate & Pooja Saraf, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Orders Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C & 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Ao”) Even Dt. 29/04/2022, Passed In Pursuance Of The Directions Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, New Delhi, Dt. 18/02/2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 & Dt. 04/03/2022 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Passed U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18:- “Ground 1:

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

independent auditor. Ground 16: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO grossly erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act. Ground 17: That the appellant craves leave to add and / or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein above ... robust economic analysis. Ground 17: That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO grossly erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act. Ground 18: That the appellant craves leave to add and / or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein above

Primetals Technologies India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18

ITA 371/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Vora, Sr. Advocate and Pooja Saraf, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 156Section 32(1)Section 92C

Freyr Software Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

similar lines, learned CIT(A) also confirmed the levy of penalty. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned AR submitted that for levy of penalty under section 270A(8) of the Act, as a pre-condition, Revenue has to prove that the case of the assessee falls in any of the categories ... Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP, Saltwater Studio LLP and Shri Duraisamy Senthil Kumar (supra), the consistent view taken is that in order to levy penalty under section 270A(8) of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer has to bring the omission or commission of the assessee

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai., Pratishtha Bhavan vs. Arun Subrahmanyam, Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 2694/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270A

filed with details in response to the notice under section 142(1) and the assessment was completed. The Ld.AR initiated the proceedings of penalty under section 270A for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. Accordingly, the revenue has determined that tax was evaded amount to Rs.25 ... appeal before the CIT(A). After acceptance of the submissions from the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) allowed the ground of the appeal and the penalty under section 270A is quashed. The Revenue aggrieved on that without considering the fact, the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the order. The tax was paid

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT International Taxation Circle 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2091/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

That, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act, and that too without issuing any penalty notice. Assessment Year 2020-21 1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances ... Appellant. 6. That, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act. Assessment Year 2021-22 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. DCIT Circle International Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2090/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

Jcdecaux S.A., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2473/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

under section 234B of the Act while calculating the tax liability of the Appellant. 8. The Ld. AO has grossly erred by initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act mechanically and without appreciating that the Appellant has neither concealed any income nor has it furnished inaccurate information relating

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2305/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

Muralidhar Mysore Sundaresh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 436/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, D.R

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 234ASection 27Section 270A(9)Section 271ASection 69A

income; Muralidhar Mysore Sundaresh, Bangalore Page 3 of 4 19. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty under section 270A(9) of the Act; 20. The Learned Officer has erred in raising demand vide issue of notice under section

Lalit Rahul Mehta, Bangalore vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Thane, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4476/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR)

Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 156Section 249(4)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(8)

Ld.Assessing Officer for difference in assessed tax and tax declared under section 139 of the Act. The difference amount was duly taken as penalty under section 270A and 200% penalty was levied under section 270A(8) read with section 270A(10) amounting to Rs.27,48,520/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee ... technical defect in Form No.35 in column No.9 for assessee not offered ‘yes’ comments. In this column 9, the entire appeal related to penalty under section 270A was rejected. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Bench. 4. The Ld.AR filed a written submission which is kept

Lords Inn Hotels and Developers Private Limited, Andheri West vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3(1), Nariman Point

ITA 3615/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav BansalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 44A

notice under Section 274 read with Section 270A of the Act was issued to the Appellant asking the Appellant to show cause why penalty under Section 270A of the Act should not be levied since the Appellant has under-reported income which is in consequence of misreporting. In response ... Assessee to set up a case for non-levy of penalty. We have concluded hereinabove, that the assessing officer must direct initiation of penalty under Section 270A of the Act while passing the assessment/reassessment order and thereby, assume jurisdiction. Therefore, if the charge along with the proposed quantum is communicated

Allied Photographics India Limited, Churchgate vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

ITA 3540/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra PoojaryFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 270ASection 274Section 32

penalty order, dated 27/08/2021. Before CIT(A) it was contended on behalf of the Appellant that the Assessing Officer has wrongly imposed penalty under Section 270A of the Act in respect of disallowance of INR 1,21,179/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 14A of the Act without ... disallowance of depreciation claim of INR 1,92,024/-. It was also contended that even in respect of the aforesaid claim of depreciation penalty under Section 270A of the Act was not leviable since the Appellant had disclosed all facts in the return as well as in the course

Jayant Metal Mfg Co Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6 (1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 4445/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the appeal is disposed off." 3. The relevant facts in brief are that Appellant-company did not have any business activity for last many several years due to deadlock in management arising from disputes between the two shareholder directors. For many years the Appellant-company did not file return of income. However, the income from

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 270A

reflected in Form 26AS. Penalty proceedings were also directed to be initiated under Section 270A of the Act. Subsequently, penalty under Section 270A of the Act was levied on the Appellant vide order, dated 19/09/2022. The Appellant preferred appeal before 2 Assessment Year 2017-18 CIT(A) challenging levy

Rhine Energy LLP, Bhagirath Palace vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre(Nefac)

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3052/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2021-22 Rhine Energy Llp Vs. Assessment Unit, Flat No. 4, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Mahalaxmi Market, Department, Nfac Bhagirath Palace, Delhi. Delhi - 110 006 Pan Aatfr6490A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 270ASection 37Section 37(1)

brought to tax as the assessee’s business income under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. Simultaneously, the penalty under section 270A is initiated separately for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting thereof for the assessment year 2021-22. It was found that an amount