← 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

Saic Motor Overseas Intelligent Mobility Technology Co . Ltd., Shanghai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Hsiidc Building

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

ITA 2194/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 8. That the mechanical endorsement in the impugned order to the effect that penalty under section 270A of the Act is initiated for "under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income" is illegal and bad in law.” 3. The assessee

Fayz E Husayni Trust, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc) Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3048/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 274

issue of notice under section 274 of the Act. The assessee was asked as to why the order imposing penalty under section 270A should not be imposed. In response assessee submitted its reply and reproduced the letter submitted on 29.06.2020. In the submission the assessee requested the Assessing Officer

Ge Energy Parts Inc, Wildwood Parkway Atlanta Ga Us vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-1(3)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3199/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 44BSection 9(1)(i)Section 90

234A and 244B of the Act. 11. That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act. the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3. At the outset, in this case, learned counsel for the assessee submitted

Varian Medical Systems International (India) Private Limited, Mumbaiqqq vs. Assessment Unit NFAC Cetnre ITO, Ministry of Finance Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 2496/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/w Shri Siddesh
Section 143(1)Section 144CSection 234BSection 234CSection 270ASection 37(1)Section 68Section 92C

Ground No. 10 (10.1 to 10.3) the Act Levy of additional interest under section 234C Ground No.11 (11.1 to 11.3) Initiation of penalty under section 270A of he Act Ground No. 12 (12.1 & 12.2) 4. Ground No.1 and 2 are general not warranting any separate adjudication. T.P. Adjustment towards software ... Ground No. 1 & 11 with regard to levy of interest under section 234B & 234C and Ground No. 12 with regard to initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act are consequential not warranting as separate adjudication. 39. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partially allowed. Order

Prathamesh Vivek Khot, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 41 2 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 2602/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Income Tax Officer, Prathamesh Vivek Khot 1502-1503 Dreams 1-A Wing, National E-Assessment Lbs Marg Bhandup (W), Centre, Delhi Vs. Mumbai-400 078 Maharashtra-400 078 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bsbpk6695K Assessee By : Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.M. Bhatt, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 142Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 54FSection 9

assessee against the order passed under section 270A of the act by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (the learned AO) leaving the penalty under section 270A (9) at ₹ 757,438/– ,was dismissed. 02. Assessee aggrieved with the same raised following grounds in this appeal: – “1. The learned ... necessary tax along with the interest. It was further stated that as per section 270AA assessee could apply for immunity for imposition of penalty under section 270A as assessee has paid the due tax thereon accepting the demand and assessee does not want to file an appeal against the said

Rajasthan Grameen Aajeevika Vikas Parisad, Jaipur vs. Acitdcit Cir -6, Jaipur

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 535/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 144Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

ara aitcita after, cage =aradis, aayR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR T. we srareeat, Rh

Vdb Infra and Realty Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(4), Bangalore

ITA 1017/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 44A

ITA No.1017/Bang/2023 VDB Infra and Realty Private Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Arkha Solar Power Private Limited, Rajahmundary vs. DCIT-1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 92/VIZ/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Dec 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.92/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) Arkha Solar Power Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax-1, Elakolanu Village, 4Th Floor, Sri Deepthi Towers, Rangampeta, Rajahmundry, Main Road, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh – 533294. Andhra Pradesh-533001. Pan: Aalca 4293K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Ms. Karishma R. Phatarphekar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma R. PhatarphekarFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C(1)

erred in computing the interest under section 234B and section 234D of the Act while calculating the appellant’s payable demand. Initiation of penalty under section 270A 10 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings U/s. 270A

Edelweiss Asset Management Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3020/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule , Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 154Section 25tSection 270ASection 37(1)

Rules') The Appellant prays that the disallowance made under section 144 of the Act be deleted. 3 Edelweiss Asset Management Ltd. Initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act: 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Intl Tax Circle 3(2) (1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1758/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

directed to modify the said levy basis the directions given by your goodself with respect to the aforesaid adjustments. 11 Penalty under section 270A of the Act On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A

South Eastern Coalfieds Limited, Bilaspur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 314/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 314/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495006 Pan: Aadcs2066E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Ajit Korde, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 246ASection 270ASection 270A(9)

impugned penalty order dated 01 April 2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- (1), Bilaspur ('Ld. AO') levying penalty under section 270A of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed. (b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law. penalty levied under section 270A is void-ab-initio as no penalty under section 270A was initiated during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal and in the facts and circumstances of the case

Hemkunt Service Station P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1113/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Hemkunt Service Station P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Link Road, Circle-10(1) Near Lodhi Hotel, New Delhi. Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110 003 Pan Aaach0310H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 283Section 40Section 68

also found that the Ld. AO has made addition of Rs. 25,21,073/- on account of undeclared profit in respect of which penalty under section 270A for under- reporting of income has been initiated. The Ld. PCIT was of the view that the aforesaid disallowance and addition fall

Powercap Capacitors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 2474/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Powercap Capacitors Pvt. Ltd., Dcit-2(2)(1), 803, Swastik Chambers, Cst Mumbai. Vs. Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaacm 0152 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. H M Bhatt, DR
Section 143(3)Section 270A

case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming invocation CIT(A) erred in confirming invocation of penalty under section of penalty under section 270A of Income Tax Act, 1961. 270A of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel At the outset, the Ld. Counsel

Sri Harikuttan T, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Alleppey

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

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

expenditure on the act constituting an offence, i.e., on the sum of Rs.5.77 lakhs, no penalty would be levied. The reason is simple. Penalty under section 270A of the Act is only toward an attempt to evade tax on income, 11 ITANo. 885/Coch/2022 (AY: 2017-18) Harikuttan

D C Polyester Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 188/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 24Section 270A

accountant and the Tribunal held that such kind of mistake cannot be considered as under reporting of the income for levying penalty under section 270A of the Act. 9. The Learned DR, on the contrary, submitted that the Assessing Officer has given proper reasoning for levying penalty under section 270A

Prem Kumar Goutam, Lakhisarai vs. ITO Ward- 2 (5), Lakhisarai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 270ASection 44ASection 69CSection 80C

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, rather argumentative in nature. In brief, the dispute is whether assessee deserves to be visited with penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act or not. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a brick kiln dealer and composition dealer ... inherent jurisdictional lacuna committed by the ld. Assessing Officer could again be availed by the assessee for absolving himself from levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act. A perusal of section 44AD would indicate that in the case of certain category of assessee, a mechanism

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Maharashtra vs. ACIT (International Taxation) Circle 2(1)(1)-Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1717/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe, &
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 13. In ground No. 12 the assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act. This ground is pre-mature and the same is dismissed. I.T.A. No. 1717/Del/2022 14. In the result, appeal

Kavita Jasjit Singh, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Cir-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1981/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 250Section 270A

Kavita Jasjit Singh ITA no.1981/Mum./2023 7. The only dispute raised by the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 8. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee ... section 274 read with section 270A of the Act was issued to the assessee asking the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under section 270A of the Act be not levied. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that during the scrutiny assessment proceedings, she had voluntarily offered

Rajesh C Dalal-HUF, Surat vs. Addl/Jt/Deputy/Asst CIT/National E- Assessment Center Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 249/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Rajesh C. Dalal-Huf, A.C.I.T., P-260, Old Gidc Estate, National E-Assessment Vs. Katargam, Surat-395004. Centre, Delhi. Pan: Aalhr 4363 J Appellant Respondednt

Section 24Section 254(1)Section 270A(1)Section 274

Thus, the assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 96,404/- under section 270A in order dated 02.03.2022. Aggrieved by the order of penalty under section 270A, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee was adjudicate by NFAC vide order dated 17.08.2022 and was dismissed ... order 27.01.2021. No further appeal is filed by the assessee for contesting the additions. The assessing officer issued show cause notice for levying penalty under section 270A. In response to show cause notice, the assessee responded and submitted that they have applied for seeking immunity and filed form-68 before

The Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

ITA 1686/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 31, Tanglin Road, #03,-04, St. Circle-3(1)(1), Regis Residences, Singapore, International Taxation, Singapore, Singapore, 247912 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagct8026Q Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Anmol, Adv Shri Priya, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2023

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 282A(1)

Consequential Grounds 21. That the AO erred in levying interest under section 234D of the ITA. 22. That the AO erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the ITA.” 2. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. Out of aforesaid grounds, ground