“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

Deepak Kumar Rajoria, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 80G

section 270AA of the Act, the Assessee has been provided with option to making application to AO for granting immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC. subject to fulfilment of following conditions: - (a) the tax and interest payable

Booking.Com India Support & Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 6 (1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2069/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar JainFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270A

Appellant. 8. On facts and in law, the Hon'ble DRP/ Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred on fact and in law in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act. The above Grounds of Appeal' are independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to supplement, withdraw, amend

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 43/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 43/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 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 S.K Meena, CIT-DR

Section 270ASection 3

circumstances of the case and in law, impugned penalty order dated 31 March 2020 passed by the (ld. AO') levying penalty under section 270A of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ... reads as under: “1. In the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in passing order levying penalty under section 270A during pendency of the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order for the AY 2018-19, in violation

Madhurittu Puri, United Kingdom vs. DCIT, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3063/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 234DSection 270A(2)

Rs.2,43,86,326 and the income tax demand of Rs.67,12,119 as created thereon is very excessive. 8. That the penalty under section 270A(2) as initiated for alleged under-reporting of income is not applicable on the facts and under the law in Appellant’s case ... section 234D which is consequential. 11. Ground No. 7 and 9 are general in nature. 12. Ground No. 8 relates to initiation of penalty under section 270A(2) of the Act which is pre-mature not requiring adjudication at this stage. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bhuramal Rajmal Surana & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 254/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Her; (B) No Proceedings Were Directed To Be Initiated In Original Appeal Order Dt. 28.02.2022 And/Or; (C) It Has Been Passed In Haste Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Manisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270ASection 271ASection 41(1)Section 68

assessment order also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act on account of addition of Rs. 32,91,000/- and penalty under section 270A on the addition of Rs. 71,35,200/-. 5.1 Against the order of assessment with regard to addition, assessee preferred appeal

Amar Nath, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gurgaon

ITA 74/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 133ASection 143Section 156Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(9)Section 69A

period of filing the appeal as specified in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 286CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under

Dhansukhlal Maganlal Dhangar, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Navsari

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

ITA 247/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Dhansukhlal Maganlal Dhangar, I.T.O., Shantinagar Society, Ranifaliya, Ward-2, Vs. Vansda, Navsari-396580 (Gujarat) Navsari. Pan No. Acypd 0673 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 274Section 80T

addition of Rs. 6,48,830/- and initiated penalty for misreporting of income. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice for levy of penalty under Section 270A read with section 274 of the Act vide notice dated 15/01/2021 to file reply on or before 01/02/2021. The Assessing Officer recorded that ... Section 10(10AA) of the Act. Thus, as the 6 Sh. Anil Omprakash Mishra Vs ITO assessee was under bonafide impression that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act is to be levied. Even otherwise, the assessee in his reply before the assessing officer in his explanation has shown

DCIT, Ajmer vs. M/S V.C. Granite, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 69A

115BBE are not applicable and thereby holding that penalty initiated by the AO under section 271AAC cannot be levied while failing to initiate penalty under section 270A even with regard to addition sustained to the extent of admitted profit element. 5. The learned CIT Appeal has erred in granting relief

V C Granites, Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri James Kurian (CIT)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 69A

Alrameez Construction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 482/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. 707/708, 7Th Floor, Jms Business Centre Behram Baug, Oshiwara Link Road, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai-400 080 Pan: Aafca8078A ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR

Section 143Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 274Section 275Section 43C

Assessing Officer made addition on basis of difference between value declared by assessee and value determined by DVO - Consequently, Assessing Officer also imposed penalty under section 270A - It was noted that value determined by DVO was an estimate based on other properties at different rates which were averaged to find ... basis of estimation could not provide 9 M/s Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. foundation for under-reported income for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 270A and thus, penalty was to be deleted - Held, yes [Para 3 and 4] [In favour of assessee]” “[2022] 144 taxmann.com 168 (Pune - Trib

Baker Hughes Energy Technologies Uk Limited, United Kingdom vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 521/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 448Section 44B

demand earlier for adjustment of refunds. 17. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO erred in initiating penalty under Section 270A of the Act.” 3. The assessee, Baker Hughes Energy Technology UK Limited, is a company incorporated in, and a tax resident of, United Kingdom

Orange Business Services India Solutions Private Limited (Formerly Known As Equant Solutions India Private Limited), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2026/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Malhotra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 92B

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that

Jubilant Securities Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-13(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2545/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 14ASection 270ASection 270A(6)(a)

disallowance without litigating further. Be that as it may, based on the aforesaid disallowance, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 270A of the Act, alleging under reporting of income by the assessee. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed an order 3 ITA No. 2546/Del./2022 imposed ... disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, it cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the assessee had under reported its income. In fact, penalty under Section 270A of the Act is not automatic. Sub-section(6) of section 270A carves out exceptions where in certain instances the income assessed cannot

Cnh Industrial (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre Circle 6(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1890/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Cnh Industrial (Ind) Pvt. Ltd Level04, Rectangle-1, D4 Acit, Central Circle 6(3) District Center, Commercial Mumbai Vs. Complex Saket, South Delhi, Delhi 110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaci3922Q

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR

Section 234BSection 92C

liable to pay any interest under Section 234B of the Act and such levy is unjustified, incorrect and illegal. 9. Initiating Penalty under section 270A of the Act 9.1 On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating

Unilever India Exports Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, -CC 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2108/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234BSection 270A

section 14A Grounds 10-13: Disallowance of ESOP expenses. Ground 14 : Excess levy of interest under section 234B & 234D Ground 15 : Initiation of penalty under section 270A 7. TP adjustment towards payment of central services (Ground No.3 to 7) 7.1 The brief facts are that the assessee company has made

Unilever India Exports Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - Central Circle - 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2107/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 234BSection 270A

Parsben Jivanbhai Vadhiya, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(3), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesse is allowed

ITA 47/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.47/Srt/2023 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Parasben Jivanbhai Vadhiya Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Village Budhaleshwar, Tal. Income-Tax, Circle-(3), Vs Mahuva, Surat-394250 Surat Pan No: Apvpv 0109 F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr Date Of Filing Appeal 25.01.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 06.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 06.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 05.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises Out Against The Penalty Levied By Assessing Officer Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer In Imposing Penalty Of Rs.1,54,500/- U/S 270A Of The I.T.Act, 1961. Parasben J. Vadhiya 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order Although Assessee Sought Adjournment Upto 12/01/2023. 3. It Is Therefore Prayed That Penalty Imposed By Assessing Officer & Confirmed By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) May Please Be Deleted.

Section 139(1)Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)Section 274Section 43B

penalty, the assessee filed its reply through ITBA portal on 05.01.2021, which was not considered by assessing officer. The assessing officer imposed penalty under section 270A(2) @ 200% of tax payable for alleged under-reporting income in consequence of misreporting. The Assessing Officer worked 5 Parasben J. Vadhiya ... that the assessee claimed deduction of such amount in computation of income of such amount. In response to show cause against levy of penalty under section 270A(2), the assessee again specifically contended that assessee has not claimed the amount as expenditure in the succeeding assessment year. 10. Further

Shell Informaation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 996/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 270A

Erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Penalty under section 270A of the Act 9. Erred in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act for misreporting/underreporting particulars of income without appreciating the facts and circumstances

Shellinformation Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2308/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 234DSection 270A

Erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case; Penalty under section 270A of the Act 8. Erred in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act for misreporting / underreporting particulars of income without appreciating the facts and circumstances

Ab Inbev Gcc Services India Private Limited (Earlier Known As Gcc Services India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 290/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Ab Inbev Gcc Services India Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier Known As Gcc Services India Pvt. Ltd.), The Deputy 12Th & 13Th Floor, Commissioner Of Peridot Block, Bagmane Income Tax, World Technology Centre Circle 3(1)(1), Sez, Vs. Bangalore. Marthalli Road, Kr Puram, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan: Aafcg8223M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 21/02/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CA

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 244ASection 270ASection 92B

days instead of the industry average credit period Page 3 of 17 IT(TP)A No. 290/Bang/2022 3. Ground on erroneous initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act Ld. AO was not justified and rather grossly erred NA in law and in facts by initiating penalty proceedings under