← 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

Sangam Almirah Private Limited, Muzaffarpur vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 338/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

default within the meaning of provision of section 270A(9) of the Act and as such it was a fit case to levy penalty under section 270A(9) being @ 200% of the tax payable on the income underreported due to misreporting, which amounted to ₹1,95,048/-. Aggrieved with ... 270AA are reproduced as under: “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

Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. Ld. ITO, Ward 35(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3447/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 270A

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 276-C or Section 276-CC, where the proceedings for penalty under Section 270A has not been initiated

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1999/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

Department’s findings. Therefore, simply because the assessee did not appeal against the assessment order does not automatically justify the levy of penalty under section 270A. Considering these distinctions, we hold that the decision in MAK Data (P.) Ltd. is not applicable to the present case. ITA Nos.1996 ... Sabari Diamonds & Jewels :: 17 :: 10. Regarding the other submissions of the Ld. AR, we note that the additions forming the basis of penalty under section 270A were made from loose sheets (JPACK ledger extracts) and sworn statements of Shri Suresh Kumar Khatri and Shri Rajendra Kothari, without any corroborative evidence

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1998/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

Department’s findings. Therefore, simply because the assessee did not appeal against the assessment order does not automatically justify the levy of penalty under section 270A. Considering these distinctions, we hold that the decision in MAK Data (P.) Ltd. is not applicable to the present case. ITA Nos.1996 ... Sabari Diamonds & Jewels :: 17 :: 10. Regarding the other submissions of the Ld. AR, we note that the additions forming the basis of penalty under section 270A were made from loose sheets (JPACK ledger extracts) and sworn statements of Shri Suresh Kumar Khatri and Shri Rajendra Kothari, without any corroborative evidence

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1997/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

Department’s findings. Therefore, simply because the assessee did not appeal against the assessment order does not automatically justify the levy of penalty under section 270A. Considering these distinctions, we hold that the decision in MAK Data (P.) Ltd. is not applicable to the present case. ITA Nos.1996 ... Sabari Diamonds & Jewels :: 17 :: 10. Regarding the other submissions of the Ld. AR, we note that the additions forming the basis of penalty under section 270A were made from loose sheets (JPACK ledger extracts) and sworn statements of Shri Suresh Kumar Khatri and Shri Rajendra Kothari, without any corroborative evidence

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

Department’s findings. Therefore, simply because the assessee did not appeal against the assessment order does not automatically justify the levy of penalty under section 270A. Considering these distinctions, we hold that the decision in MAK Data (P.) Ltd. is not applicable to the present case. ITA Nos.1996 ... Sabari Diamonds & Jewels :: 17 :: 10. Regarding the other submissions of the Ld. AR, we note that the additions forming the basis of penalty under section 270A were made from loose sheets (JPACK ledger extracts) and sworn statements of Shri Suresh Kumar Khatri and Shri Rajendra Kothari, without any corroborative evidence

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1655/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

original return with full details, it could not be alleged that assessee was guilty of under-reporting and/or misreporting of income penalty under section 270A was not exigible In the case of Kavita Jasjit Singh Vs CIT(A) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 756 (Mumbai - Trib.) the Honble Mumbai Tribunal had held ... there was no case of under reporting of income as per provisions of section 270A(2)and (3) and, thus, penalty under section 270A was to be deleted. In the case of Saltwater Studio LLP VS NFAC, Delhi the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal vide order dated 22.5.2023 in I.T.A. No.13/Mum/2023

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Thiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1654/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

original return with full details, it could not be alleged that assessee was guilty of under-reporting and/or misreporting of income penalty under section 270A was not exigible In the case of Kavita Jasjit Singh Vs CIT(A) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 756 (Mumbai - Trib.) the Honble Mumbai Tribunal had held ... there was no case of under reporting of income as per provisions of section 270A(2)and (3) and, thus, penalty under section 270A was to be deleted. In the case of Saltwater Studio LLP VS NFAC, Delhi the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal vide order dated 22.5.2023 in I.T.A. No.13/Mum/2023

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Thiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1653/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

original return with full details, it could not be alleged that assessee was guilty of under-reporting and/or misreporting of income penalty under section 270A was not exigible In the case of Kavita Jasjit Singh Vs CIT(A) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 756 (Mumbai - Trib.) the Honble Mumbai Tribunal had held ... there was no case of under reporting of income as per provisions of section 270A(2)and (3) and, thus, penalty under section 270A was to be deleted. In the case of Saltwater Studio LLP VS NFAC, Delhi the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal vide order dated 22.5.2023 in I.T.A. No.13/Mum/2023

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1652/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

original return with full details, it could not be alleged that assessee was guilty of under-reporting and/or misreporting of income penalty under section 270A was not exigible In the case of Kavita Jasjit Singh Vs CIT(A) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 756 (Mumbai - Trib.) the Honble Mumbai Tribunal had held ... there was no case of under reporting of income as per provisions of section 270A(2)and (3) and, thus, penalty under section 270A was to be deleted. In the case of Saltwater Studio LLP VS NFAC, Delhi the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal vide order dated 22.5.2023 in I.T.A. No.13/Mum/2023

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1651/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

original return with full details, it could not be alleged that assessee was guilty of under-reporting and/or misreporting of income penalty under section 270A was not exigible In the case of Kavita Jasjit Singh Vs CIT(A) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 756 (Mumbai - Trib.) the Honble Mumbai Tribunal had held ... there was no case of under reporting of income as per provisions of section 270A(2)and (3) and, thus, penalty under section 270A was to be deleted. In the case of Saltwater Studio LLP VS NFAC, Delhi the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal vide order dated 22.5.2023 in I.T.A. No.13/Mum/2023

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, Chennai

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1650/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 1Section 132Section 139(1)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

original return with full details, it could not be alleged that assessee was guilty of under-reporting and/or misreporting of income penalty under section 270A was not exigible In the case of Kavita Jasjit Singh Vs CIT(A) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 756 (Mumbai - Trib.) the Honble Mumbai Tribunal had held ... there was no case of under reporting of income as per provisions of section 270A(2)and (3) and, thus, penalty under section 270A was to be deleted. In the case of Saltwater Studio LLP VS NFAC, Delhi the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal vide order dated 22.5.2023 in I.T.A. No.13/Mum/2023

Assam Bio Ethanol Private Limited, Guwahati vs. ITO W-1(1), Guwahati

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 288/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: The Drp Was That The

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(3)

quashed. Ground 9: On facts and in law, the Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred on fact and in law in initiating penalty under section 270A of the Act.” 2. Before us, right at the outset, the Ld. AR made a statement at the I.T.A. No. 288/GTY/2024 Assam Bio Ethanol Private

Gujarat Energy Development Agency, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1180/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 270A

Development Agency vs. DCIT Page 10 of 13 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, the order levying the penalty under Section 270A is legally unsustainable and therefore, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) ought to be quashed and penalty of Rs.7 ... assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceeding under Section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income. However, the penalty under Section 270A of the Act was imposed for misreporting of income, which was not correct. He submitted that there was no misreporting of income

Gujarat Energy Development Agency, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1179/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 270A

Development Agency vs. DCIT Page 10 of 13 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, the order levying the penalty under Section 270A is legally unsustainable and therefore, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) ought to be quashed and penalty of Rs.7 ... assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceeding under Section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income. However, the penalty under Section 270A of the Act was imposed for misreporting of income, which was not correct. He submitted that there was no misreporting of income

Assimilate Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Circle, 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in this regard is dismissed

ITA 5357/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassimilate Solutions India Private Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Llp, Circle 1 (1), Chartered Accountants, New Delhi. C – 763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi – 110 025. (Pan :Aakca4501H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv Sapra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharam Veer Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2015 Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2021-22 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act. 2. M/S. Assimilate Solutions India Private Limited, The Assessee Was Incorporated On 19.04,2012 & Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

very excessive (xi) That the income tax demand of Rs. 2,24,63,883 as created is very excessive. (xii) That the penalty under section 270A of the Act, as initiated for alleged under- reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income is not applicable on the facts ... Such rectification application has not been disposed of till date. Ground No. (xii) This ground is against initiating of penalty under section 270A of the Act for underreporting of income. In this connection, Assessee refers to and relies upon its detailed submissions filed before DRP at pages

Raghavan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ncc-22(1), Tambaram

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

ITA 1776/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1776/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Raghavan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3503, Bay View House, Hiraranan, Non Corporate Circle 22(1). 5/63, Omr, Egattur, Thazambur, Tambaram, Chennai. Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu. 600 130 [Pan:Ajjpv9178L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 12 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)(b)Section 274

Officer accepted the returned income filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, but, however, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 270A of the Act @ 200% of tax for alleged under-reporting of income, which is in consequence of misreporting of income ... returned income filed by the assessee in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, but, on the other hand, levied penalty under section 270A of the Act. The assessee also contended that when the details of TDS and gross interest is very much available with the Department

Bharat Kumar Jaishinh Soni, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4261/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)

exempt was thus neither baseless nor 3 Bharat Kumar Jaishinh Soni mala fide. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the explanation and imposed penalty under section 270A(9) at 200 per cent of the tax sought to be evaded, quantifying the penalty at ₹ 5,51,016 on the alleged misreported income

Hi-Tech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 5(1), Bandra Mumbai

ITA 3166/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 270A(9)(f)Section 69C

270A(9)(f) by virtue of which the Appellant had misreported it‟s income. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no penalty under section 270A of the Act was imposable on estimated addition because the factum of either under reporting of income or mis-reporting of income ... 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

Hi-Tech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 5(1), Bandra East, Mumbai

ITA 3165/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik ChhedaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra
Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 270A(9)(f)Section 69C

270A(9)(f) by virtue of which the Appellant had misreported it‟s income. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no penalty under section 270A of the Act was imposable on estimated addition because the factum of either under reporting of income or mis-reporting of income ... 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