“penalty u/s 270A”

PenaltySection 270ASection 270A583 judgments

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 45/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit. Following similar reasonings we restore the issue of levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act also to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal ... confirm the disallowance of Rs.1,09,529/-. Effecting grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed.” 19. Therefore penalty u/s 270A is not leviable on the amount of Rs.1,32,41,080/- and is liable to be deleted. We, therefore, delete the penalty leviable on the amount

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 44/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

ITA 43/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

HAMEECLASS BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PAREL

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

ITA 6859/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR. DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

also passed Orders for levying Penalties vide orders dated 21- 09-2025 - Penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act and 24-09-2025 - Penalty u/s 270A of the Act,and due to the changed email and contact. number I immediately came to know about the Penalties levied ... date for filing Order against Penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act was 21-10-2025 and against Penalty u/s 270A was 24-10-2025. 17. However, the appeal against the Order passed by Hon. CIT-Appeals / NFAC, which was due on 28-05-2025, is delayed because

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

ITA 5011/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194ISection 234FSection 250

aside. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 270A of the Act, and the order of CIT (Appeal)/NFAC is not correct as per procedure in confirming the same, hence the same is requested

SHARP GARUDA FARM EQUIPMENTS PVT.LTD,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, , COIMBATORE

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

ITA 3394/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T.Mythili, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 274Section 37

course of the assessment proceedings, the appellant withdrew its claim made earlier in the revised return filed on 31.03.2021 and in such circumstances penalty u/s 270A is not leviable. 4. The appellant submits that the variation in the total income due to retrospective amendment ... time of filing the revised return was a bonafide claim and all material facts were duly disclosed. In such circumstances, the levy of penalty u/s. 270A(8) r.w.s. 270A(9) of the Act is unwarranted and the same is directed to be deleted. In taking the above view, we place

RAJKAMAL AGNIHOTRI,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Rajkamal Agnihotri Vs Ito Shivalik View, Lane No.3, Ward-1(1)(3) Jogiala, Ring Road, Dehradun Nathanpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -248005 Pan-Amqpa2608G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. K. Juneja, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10408670 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,89,260/-. The Return Was Updated On 11.09.2023 U/S 139(8A) Of The Act, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 73,92,200/- & Paid The Taxes Alongwith The Interest Thereon. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Ground That No Capital Gain Was Reported In Itr Though The Assessee Has Sold The Property Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Act Dated 14.03.2024 Wherein Income Declared In The Updated Return Filed U/S 139(8A) Of The Act Was Accepted However, Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A(1) R.W.S. 270A(8) & 270A(9)(A) Of The Act Were Initiated. The Ao Thereafter, Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings & Imposed The Penalty In Terms Of The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Imposing The Penalty Of Inr 31,58,542/- U/S 270A Of The Act.

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 19Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 9

Infra Projects Ltd. Vs ACIT (supra) has held that in case the AO has failed to specify the exact limb in the notice, penalty u/s 270A of the Act, is not valid. Similar view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal, Delhi Benches in following cases:- DCIT

GRAND LEGACY,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Grand Legacy Vs Dcit Khasra No.384 Min/New Circle-1, No.642K, Dehra Khas Dehradun Adjoining Lal Pul Patel Uttarakhand Nagar, Dehradun Uttarakhand -248001 Pan-Aaifg4885D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajan Malik & Shri A.K. Kashyap Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10101141 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S 80-Ic Of The Act Which Was Disallowed By The Ao For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Fulfilled The Conditions Prescribed For Claiming Said Deduction & Initiated The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271A For Under Reporting As A Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Of Income. Thereafter, Ao Levied Penalty U/S 271A Of The Act Of Inr 67,820/- For Under Reporting By Invoking Clause (E) Of Sub-Section (9) Of Section 270A Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 80Section 80I

willful attempt made by the assessee and accordingly, it is the case of under reporting as a consequence of mis- reporting for which penalty u/s 270A of the Act has rightly been levied. 9. Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant

SHRI BEERESHWAR CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD MADABHAVI,BELAGAVI vs. ITO WARD-2, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

ITA 487/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 487/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80P(2)

Nos.487/PAN/2025 AY: 2020-21 2. This appeal deals with the legitimacy of action of first appellate authority in confirming levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act when appeal against quantum is pending for adjudication on merits. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee Mr Halbhavi ... regular course of business which is still pending before the Ld. first appellate authority for disposal. 3.4 The impugned levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act was also assailed by the assessee by filing first appeal before Ld. first appellate authority. Pending the disposal of former quantum appeal

BHOPAL SINGH CHAUDHARY,SRINAGAR GARHWAL vs. ITO SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR GARHWAL

ITA 5/DDN/2026[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 50CSection 56(2)

arising out of assessment order, both dated 02.09.2021 passed u/s 147 of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18 and penalty u/s 270A of the Act respectively. 2. Since both the appeals are related to one assessee and against the additions made in reassessment order and consequent levy

BHOPAL SINGH CHAUDHARY,DEHRADUN vs. ITO SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR GARHWAL

ITA 236/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun09 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 50CSection 56(2)

COLOUR YELLOW PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as\nwithdrawn

ITA 718/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274Section 80G

order passed u/s 270A of\nthe act does not specify the exact limb of section 270A(9) alleged to have been\nviolated.\nII. Penalty U/s 270A of Rs 5,78,022/-:\n3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s.\n270A

MEHUL PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C.C 1(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4702/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Section 10Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 274

notice u/s 274 r.w. section\n270A was issued wherein the assessee was requested to show cause why an order\nimposing a penalty u/s 270A should not be made for the aforesaid additions. In\nresponse to the same, the details were duly compiled and submitted by the\nassessee ... before the Ld. AO,\nseeking grant of immunity from penalty under section 270A of the Act. Bu the Ld.\nAO proceeds to impose penalty U/s 270A of the Act.\nAggrieved by the above, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.\nCIT(A) upheld the impugned

N.A.M. EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2044/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the due date provided for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, which attracts the provisions section 43B, however, the said amount 3

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274Section 43B

Accordingly, a show cause notice, dated 06.09.2021 and 08.03.2022 was issued to the assessee to file its objection, if any for proposed penalty u/s 270A of the Act. In response, the assessee filed letter dated 28.05.2021 and submitted that by inadvertent error, the assessee failed to add disallowance reported ... assessee has not preferred any further appeal. The assessee had also submitted that it has filed an application for immunity from imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act on 28.05.2021, within one month from the end of the month in which the order has been received by the assessee

M/S. AVM PRODUCTIONS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-20(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

Section 270Section 270A

read with section 270A was issued to the assessee on 25.10.2019 asking the assessee to show cause as to why an order imposing penalty u/s. 270A should not be passed for mis- reporting of income Another show cause notice u/s. 274 r.w.s 270A was issued to the assessee ... reasonable cause mis-reporting the particulars in respect of income amounting to Rs. 11,04,541/- and had rendered himself liable for penalty u/s 270A of the Act. M/s. AVM Productions :: 7 :: 6. A reading of the penalty order u/s.270A of the Act, would reveal that the AO has merely

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

facts read with above decisions it is respectfully submitted that the order passed by the A.O. and on account of non initiation of penalty u/s 270A it does not become prejudicial and erroneous to the interest of the revenue and there is no question of income ... firm filed the return and thereon the I.T.A No. 840/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 7 Mahaveer Singh Vs. PCIT assessing officer failed to invoke penalty u/s. 270A(2)(b) of the Act, whereby the Revision order was quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. But here in the present

DINESH VERMA,MANALI, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ITO, ITO WARD KULLU

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 897/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, C.A (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 263Section 270A

Learned PCIT has erred in law and facts and circumstance of the case invoking section 263 by directing the AO to initiate penalty u/s 270A when no penalty u/s 270A was initiated by AO in his order. 2. That the Learned PCIT has erred in law and facts and circumstance ... case invoking section 263 by directing the AO to initiate penalty u/s 270A inspite the fact that he himself has not initiated any penalty proceedings u/s 270A. 3. That the Learned CIT has erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by relying upon Allahabad High Court decisions

JOYDEEP MUKHERJEE,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT USA vs. DCIT, INTL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2017/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19 Joydeep Mukherjee, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner A 202, Prestige St. Johns Woods Of Income Tax Apt., 80, St. Johns Cross Road, International Taxation, Circle 1(2), Bengaluru South 560 029. Bangalore. Pan: Aawpm 7656E

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Saravanan, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 276C

accordance with the law. Page 9 of 9 17. After that the assessee must also be given an opportunity to contest the penalty u/s 270A of the act on its merits. 18. In view of the above facts the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced

DCIT CIRCLE 5 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BLUE ROCK HOSPITALITY VENTURES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whe- reas the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8097/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bakul Ganatra (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, SR. AR

Section 119Section 270A

Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2017- 18 in relation to penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) amounting to Rs.30,77,876/-. 2. A preliminary issue arises regarding a delay

THE UPPILIPALAYAM MILL INDUSTRIAL WORKERS COOP HOUSE CONSTRUCTION SOCIETY LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(4), COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 3898/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3897 &3898 /Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2020-21 The Uppilipalayam Mill Industrial V. Ito, Workers Coop House Construction Non Corporate Ward Society Ltd., 1(4) Coimbatore Uppilipalayam Post, Coimbatore-641015 [Pan: Awvpg 3572 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: 17.02.2026

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(a)

completed whereby Total Income was assessed at Rs.3,57,076/- after making an addition of Rs. 1,78,436/- and also imposed penalty u/s 270A of the Act. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals on account of delay. 3. Before us, appellant has requested for condonation

Showing 1–20 of 583 · Page 1 of 30

...