← 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

Podar Literacy and Education Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT Central Circle - 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4762/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 10Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

such a claim, in the admitted factual backdrop of the case, results in “under-reporting of income” so as to warrant levy of penalty under section 270A. 11. At the outset, it is necessary to emphasise that penalty under section 270A is not automatic. The provision first requires the existence ... assessee's claim of depreciation, though impermissible under section 11(6), automatically leads to under-reporting of income so as to trigger penalty under section 270A. The factual matrix clearly demonstrates that the assessee's income remains exempt and Nil, there is no loss reduction or conversion into income

R. K. Industries Unit- II LLP, Bhavnagar vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1318/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokarasstt. Year: 2016-17 R.K. Industries Unit- Ii Llp Assistant 3Rd Floor Shree Ram House, Vs. Commissioner Of Khergada Street, Khargate, Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhavnagar – 364 001 Bhavnagar – 364 002 Pan: Aadfr 4127 N (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Hiren Trivedi, Ar Assessee By : Revenue By Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(iii)

under section 36(1)(iii). The levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D and initiation of penalty under section 270A were also upheld. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before

Orissa Rural Housing and Development Corporation Limited(Orhdc), Khorda vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 516/CTK/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 43B

provisions of section 43B of the Act. It was against the assessment orders. It was the submission that the penalty under section 270A of the Act had been levied on the assessee on account of the said disallowance. It was the submission that, on appeal against the order under section ... provisions of section 43B of the Act did not apply to the interest payable to the government, tThe penalty under section 270A of the Act was not called for. 3. In reply the ld. CIT. DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A). 4. We have considered

Orissa Rural Housing and Development Corporation Limited(Orhdc), Khorda vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 515/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 43B

provisions of section 43B of the Act. It was against the assessment orders. It was the submission that the penalty under section 270A of the Act had been levied on the assessee on account of the said disallowance. It was the submission that, on appeal against the order under section ... provisions of section 43B of the Act did not apply to the interest payable to the government, tThe penalty under section 270A of the Act was not called for. 3. In reply the ld. CIT. DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and CIT(A). 4. We have considered

Balaji Powertronics, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2743/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Balaji Powertronics, Vs. Dcit, Circle-43(1), H-56, Udyog Nagar, New Delhi Main Rohtak Road, Delhi – 1100 41 Pan :Aagfb0501M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 80Section 928A

Rs.21,09,91,682 u/s 92CA(3)/80-1A(10)/80-IC of Act. The Ld. TPO advised the ld. AO to consider initiation of penalty under Section 270A of the Act against the assessee. After receipt of the TPO order, the Ld. AO issued the draft order dated 24.03.2021 under Section

Mrinalini Jayant Puranik, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Pune

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

ITA 1790/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20 Mrinalini Jayant Puranik Ito, Ward 2(2), Pune Flat 14, Khagol Coop Society, Vs. S.No.38/1, Panchavati, Pashan, Pune – 411008 Pan: Almpp5163E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Suhas KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274

from imposition of penalty, etc. 270AA. (1) An assessee may make an application to the Assessing Officer to grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, if he fulfils the following conditions, namely:— (a) the tax and interest payable ... 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 276CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

Order the assessee admitted the discrepancy only during assessment. The error led to under-reported income of Rs. 5,43,930/-, which attracted penalty under Section 270A(2)(a). 6.2 Filing statutory returns based on unaudited records amounts to carelessness. The discrepancy remained unrectified until detection. While ... such circumstances inadvertent mistake in the service tax return of March 2017 could not ipso facto be a basis to levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 19 20 THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE EVEN OTHERWISE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY "INACCURATE" PARTICULARS OF INCOME, AS ALL FACTS ARE BROUGHT

ITO, Malda vs. Dipali Singha Roy, South Dinajpur

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1331/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 145(3)Section 250Section 270A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”]. 1.1 In this case, the penalty under Section 270A of the Act has been levied by the AO vide his order dated 12.06.2023. It is pertinent to note that the said order has been

ACIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hcc Infrastructure Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6111/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hasmukh RavariaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 270A

allowed.” 8. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. Since the very basis on which the penalty under section 270A was levied has been deleted by the Coordinate Bench of the ITAs No.6110 & 6111/Mum/2025 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) 5 Tribunal in quantum ... appeal for the assessment year 2017-18 are dismissed. 9. As in the appeal for the assessment year 2018-19, the penalty under section 270A of the Act was also levied on the basis of disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules, which has been

ACIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hcc Infrastructure Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6110/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hasmukh RavariaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 270A

allowed.” 8. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. Since the very basis on which the penalty under section 270A was levied has been deleted by the Coordinate Bench of the ITAs No.6110 & 6111/Mum/2025 (A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19) 5 Tribunal in quantum ... appeal for the assessment year 2017-18 are dismissed. 9. As in the appeal for the assessment year 2018-19, the penalty under section 270A of the Act was also levied on the basis of disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules, which has been

Excelra Knowledge Solutions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 545/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.545/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Excelra Knowledge Vs. Dy.Cit Solutions Private Limited Circle 8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcg5715Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate H Srinivasulu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Excelra Knowledge Solutions Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22.01.2025 For The A.Y 2018-19. Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Advocate H SrinivasuluFor Respondent: : Shri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)

have any immediate nexus to the eligible unit, and therefore, the claim for deduction under section 10AA of the Act was incorrect, justifying penalty under section 270A of the Act. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute that

Repal Renewables Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 481/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.116 & 481/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Repal Renewables Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aagcr9762B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate & Ca Karan Jain राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 234Section 234BSection 234DSection 270A

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 4 ITA.Nos.116 & 481/Hyd./2022 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred in initiating

Repal Green Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 474/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.474/Hyd/2022 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Repal Green Power Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aahcr2187F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate & Ca Karan Jain राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 270ASection 32Section 32A

payable, the interest under Section 2348 and Section 234D of the Act while calculating the Appellant's payable demand. Initiation of penalty under Section 270A 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A ... erred in not appreciating that the Appellant ought to be granted investment allowance as per Section 32AD of the Act. Initiation of penalty under Section 270A 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred in Initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A

Repal Green Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 125/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.125/Hyd/2022

For Appellant: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234DSection 270ASection 32Section 32A

payable, the interest under Section 2348 and Section 234D of the Act while calculating the Appellant's payable demand. Initiation of penalty under Section 270A 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A ... erred in not appreciating that the Appellant ought to be granted investment allowance as per Section 32AD of the Act. Initiation of penalty under Section 270A 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO erred in Initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A

Repal Renewables Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 116/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.116 & 481/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Repal Renewables Private Limited, The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500 081 Pan Aagcr9762B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate & Ca Karan Jain राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Harsh R Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153Section 234Section 234BSection 234DSection 270A

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 4 ITA.Nos.116 & 481/Hyd./2022 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred in initiating

Ajay Pal Singh, Noida Gautom Buddh Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Noida Gbn, Noida

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

ITA 2253/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Pal Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), Village Gadi, Near Dadri Noida. Gautam Budh Nagar - 201 301 Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Axgps6679A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Order : 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.02.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Had Originally Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.43,88,320/-. Subsequently, Assessee Filed Revised Return On 30.03.2021 Declaring Revised Total Income Of Rs.31,26,700/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). Subsequently, The Case

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 156Section 249Section 270ASection 270MSection 276C

grant immunity from imposition of penally under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A (4) The Assessing Officer shall ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, impugned penalty order dated 26/09/2023 passed by the (ld. AO') levying penalty under section 270A of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed. As per aforesaid grounds, penalty order passed u/s 270A

M/S. Ajmera Housing Corporation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-48, Mumbai

ITA 4450/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) M/S. Ajmera Housing Corporation Cit(Appeals) 1St Floor, Hanuman Corporation Aayakar Bhavan 308 Perin, Nariman Road, Fort Vs. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaafa3654J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Surendra MohanFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jotwani
Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(2)(g)

pronouncement : 24/11/2025 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above cited case, the only issue involved is whether penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act is to be levied when the appellant did not file an appeal on the addition made ... assessment order, the Ld. AR of the appellant submitted that appeal was not filed on addition made. But, subsequently the Ld. AO levied penalty under section 270A of the Act invoking the provisions of section 270A(2)(g) of the Act and aggrieved by the penalty order

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ( Successor of Aricent Technologies Holdings Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

higher amount of taxes in the final year of utilisation of MAT Credit. 8. The Ld. AO/ 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 ... Immunity from imposition of penalty, etc. (1) An assessee may make an application to the Assessing Officer to grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, if he fulfils the following conditions, namely:- (a) the tax and interest payable

Florida Retirement System, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation -2(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 1866/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115ASection 144Section 144CSection 234Section 234BSection 270ASection 70Section 70(2)

challenge to interest under section 234B is purely consequential and will follow the recomputation of income. The ground regarding initiation of penalty under section 270A 21 Florida Retirement System is premature at this stage and does not call for adjudication in this order. 33. Summarising our conclusions, we therefore direct

Gautam Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 30 New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 2383/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2382/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 बनाम Parveen Gupta Acit, H 240, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, Vs. Central Circle 30, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaopg3625N अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2383/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 बनाम Gautam Gupta Dcit, H.No.97, 1St Floor, G Block, Vs. Central Circle 30, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Ajjpg3284A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153DSection 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 69

violative of principles of natural justice. 11. That the Id. ClT(A) has erred in sustaining the initiation of penalty under section 270A of the Act. 12. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the charging of interest under section 234B of the Act. 13. That the grounds