← 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

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied ... peace with . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 18 the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 19.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 270A of the Act cannot be levied where income

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1836/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied ... peace with . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 18 the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 19.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 270A of the Act cannot be levied where income

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied ... peace with . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 18 the Department does not absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 19.1 With respect to the assessee’s contention that penalty under section 270A of the Act cannot be levied where income

Kakinada Infrastructure Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 1053/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Respondent: MS Reema Yadav, Sr. AR
Section 270A

that no further ITA.No.1053/Hyd./2025 litigation shall be faced and to buy the peace. Only when the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty under section 270A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case created by levy of penalty has filed the present appeal to avoid

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Sitaram Jewellers, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 915/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri.T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 69C

Hence, the sum of Rs.16,22,950/- is added to the total income as unaccounted business income. For this reason, Penalty under section 270A(9) is initiated separately for under reporting of income in consequence to misreporting of income.” Thus made an addition of Rs.16

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Sitaram Jewellers, Madurai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 913/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri.T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 69C

Hence, the sum of Rs.16,22,950/- is added to the total income as unaccounted business income. For this reason, Penalty under section 270A(9) is initiated separately for under reporting of income in consequence to misreporting of income.” Thus made an addition of Rs.16

Kshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7401/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd. Dcit- Circle 210, Mogra Village, Old 2(1)(1), Nagardas Road, Mumbai- Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 400069 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aabck8174D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vishwas Mehendale Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)(a)

difference 4 Kshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd between the returned income and the assessed income, and therefore the basic condition for levy of penalty under section 270A was not satisfied. It was further submitted that the disclosure was made before completion of assessment and could not be treated as misrepresentation ... that such conduct clearly fell within the ambit of misreporting of income under section 270A(9)(a). The CIT(A) further held that penalty under section 270A is leviable even in cases where returned income and assessed income are the same, provided misreporting is established. Accordingly, vide order dated

Maersk Tankers India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 8376/MUM/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 92BSection 92B(2)Section 92C

facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and / or DRP has erred in initiating penalty under Section 270A of the Act against the Appellant. All grounds above are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant further craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw

Smt. Urmila Dhelia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4204/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274

amount of tax on under-reported income by invoking provisions of Section 270A(8) of the Act. Accordingly, while levying penalty under Section 270A of the Act for under- reporting income in consequence of misreporting, the Assessing Officer is required to establish that there is misreporting and that such misreporting

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited (Successor to Liquidhub India Private Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2753/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 155Section 155(18)Section 18Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 40

such previous year in which the assessee claimed deduction of surcharge or cess and provides indemnity to the Appellant against levy of penalty under section 270A upon timely filing of Form 69. 8. The Ld AO/CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that notwithstanding the additions made in the original assessment ... effect to such reduction in the available MAT credit in the subsequent assessment years. 9. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in levying penalty under section 270A without appreciating the fact that the appellant has not under- reported the income as per the exclusions provided under section 270A

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7070/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Assessment Year 2014-2015. It was submitted that for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 the addition was made on estimate basis, therefore, no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could be levied on the Assessee in view of the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case ... extended to the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Assessee that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could have been levied upon the Assessee in terms of Section 270A(6) of the Act in the present case

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7069/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Assessment Year 2014-2015. It was submitted that for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 the addition was made on estimate basis, therefore, no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could be levied on the Assessee in view of the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case ... extended to the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Assessee that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could have been levied upon the Assessee in terms of Section 270A(6) of the Act in the present case

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7068/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Assessment Year 2014-2015. It was submitted that for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 the addition was made on estimate basis, therefore, no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could be levied on the Assessee in view of the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case ... extended to the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Assessee that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could have been levied upon the Assessee in terms of Section 270A(6) of the Act in the present case

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7067/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Assessment Year 2014-2015. It was submitted that for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 the addition was made on estimate basis, therefore, no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could be levied on the Assessee in view of the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case ... extended to the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Assessee that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could have been levied upon the Assessee in terms of Section 270A(6) of the Act in the present case

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7066/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Assessment Year 2014-2015. It was submitted that for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 the addition was made on estimate basis, therefore, no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could be levied on the Assessee in view of the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case ... extended to the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Assessee that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could have been levied upon the Assessee in terms of Section 270A(6) of the Act in the present case

DCIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 7065/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Assessment Year 2014-2015. It was submitted that for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 the addition was made on estimate basis, therefore, no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could be levied on the Assessee in view of the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case ... extended to the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Assessee that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could have been levied upon the Assessee in terms of Section 270A(6) of the Act in the present case

DCIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Relcon Infraprojects Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 7064/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Assessment Year 2014-2015. It was submitted that for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 the addition was made on estimate basis, therefore, no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could be levied on the Assessee in view of the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case ... extended to the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the Assessee that no penalty under Section 270A of the Act could have been levied upon the Assessee in terms of Section 270A(6) of the Act in the present case

Asmeeta Infratech Limited, Bhiwandi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 2764/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Laxmichand and Company, Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwl, Gwalior

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 313/AGR/2025[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 44A

270A(6) of the Act expressly excludes additions made on an estimated basis from the ambit of “under-reporting of income.” Therefore, no penalty under section 270A can be sustained where the addition itself is 4 | P a g e based merely on estimation, without any concrete or incriminating material ... difference between profit estimated at 10% and the profit declared by the assessee at 7.37%, after rejection of books of account. Penalty under section 270A was levied without specifying whether it was for under-reporting of income as envisaged under section 270A(2)(a) to (g) or for mis-reporting

Rajesh Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 69 (1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5293/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Rajesh Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Air Force Central Accounts Ward-69(1), Office (Afcao), Subroto Park, Vs Civic Centre, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi-110010 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaapg8059M Assessee Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2026

Section 270A

matter, we find merit in the arguments of the appellant assessee. We are of the considered view that the ingredients for imposition of penalty under section 270A of under reporting of income, which is inconsequence of mis-reporting of income are not available in the present case ... attract imposition of penalty under section 270A of the Act. Accordingly, the orders of lower authorities is set-aside and the penalty under section 270A of the Act imposed vide order dated 07.09.2021 is directed to be deleted. Page 2 of 3 6. In the result, the appeal