← All Phrases

“penalty u/s 270A”

PenaltySection 270ASection 270A583 judgments

The decision most relied on for penalty u/s 270A is HCIL Arsspl Triveni (JV) v. ACIT ( (274 ITR 603), cited in 21 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on penalty u/s 270A

HCIL Arsspl Triveni (JV) v. ACIT (
274 ITR 603 · 2005 · High Court
21
citing judgments

An inaccurate claim made by the assessee cannot be treated as a case of giving inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of imposing penalty.

GR Infraprojects Ltd. v. ACIT
158 Taxmann.com 80 · 2024 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Penalty under section 270A cannot be sustained without the Assessing Officer specifying the exact charge against the assessee, including which part of section 270A(9) is attracted. Immunity under section 270AA may be granted if the Assessing Officer fails to specify the relevant sub-clause of section 270A(9) or mechanically passes an order without considering the assessee's replies.

Judgments citing penalty u/s 270A

Air Wind Green Energy Limited, Bhavnagar vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad -1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 615/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 147Section 263Section 270A(9)Section 37Section 69C

unwarranted and without jurisdictions. The order passed by the Lrd. PCIT to modified the original assessment order to the extent of levy of penalty u/s. 270A(9) of the IT Act deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. The Lrd. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Ahmedabad-1 has grievously ... been brought to our notice, we hold that the order passed in the present case u/s.263 of the Act directing initiation of penalty u/s 270A of the Act in the assessment order made in the case of the assessee, is beyond the powers prescribed as per law. The order passed

Bhel Lcc Society Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 732/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Bhel Lcc Society Ltd Vs. Dy.Cit Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaatb6430D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Sai Keerthana राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/02/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: CA Sri Sai KeerthanaFor Respondent: : Shri Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 270ASection 36

total tax of the assessee because the assessee filed Form-67 after due date of filing the Income Tax Return and the penalty u/s 270A(9) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated”. 6. The Assessing Officer then initiated the proceedings to levy the penalty u/s 270A ... circumstances as discussed above, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) deleting the penalty u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 10. Thus, the case of the assessee does not fall either in the category of under reporting

Varis Kishor Rupabhinda, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 3379/Mum/2025 is partly allowed for

ITA 4111/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3379 & 4111/Mum/2025

For Appellant: Asst. Commissioner ofFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69Section 69A

ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Coming to the issues raised in ITA No. 4111/Mum/2025, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. The roots of the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 20/03/2023 framed u/s

Varis Kishorchandra Rupabhinda, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 3379/Mum/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 3379/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 3379 & 4111/Mum/2025

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69Section 69A

ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. Coming to the issues raised in ITA No. 4111/Mum/2025, the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. The roots of the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 20/03/2023 framed u/s

The Chimna Agri. Ser Vice Society Ltd., Punjab vs. Jao Income Tax Officer, ITO, Ward-1, Jagraon, Punjab

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 422/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 423/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Chimna Co-Op. Agri. Jao. बनाम Service Society Ltd., Income Tax Officer Vpo Chimna, Jagraon, Ward 1, Vs. Ludhiana. 141011 Jagraon "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaat4706D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09-2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

passing the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the order imposing penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act at Rs. 7,02,377/- 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has in law as well

The Chimna Co-Op Agri. Service Society Ltd., Punjab vs. Jao the Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jagraon, Punjab

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 422/CHANDI/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 422/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 423/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Chimna Co-Op. Agri. Jao. बनाम Service Society Ltd., Income Tax Officer Vpo Chimna, Jagraon, Ward 1, Vs. Ludhiana. 141011 Jagraon "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaat4706D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09-2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri. Kushal Chopra, C.A. (virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

passing the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the order imposing penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act at Rs. 7,02,377/- 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has in law as well

Ratan Rajmal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4130/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Ratan Rajmal Mehta Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Harihar Niwas, Besant Road, 22(3)(1), Mumbai Vs. Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 400054. Pan/Gir No. Bdipm2252G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Vajani (Virtually) Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kasuri, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, SR. AR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

assessment u/s 148, the same falls within the category of under reporting in consequence of misreporting. The AO therefore had rightly levied the penalty u/s 270A of the Act”. 5. Being aggrieved with aforesaid decision of Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order dated 15/04/2025, the assessee is in appeal

Aruna Singh, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 1007/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Vaze &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

assessee has also preferred an appeal against the quantum assessment order for the same assessment year on the basis of which the above penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act was imposed. Ld. AR further submitted that the appeal against quantum assessment order was also dismissed ... prayed to set-aside the impugned penalty order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & further requested to remand the issue of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer to decide the issue of penalty after deciding the quantum case for the same

Arusuvai Food Processors Pvt. Ltd., Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 264Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 270A(9)(c)Section 271Section 41(1)

issued by the AO u/s.274 r.w.s.270A of the Act. In absence of any particular charge for which, the assessee is directed to pay penalty u/s 270A of the Act, entire penalty proceedings becomes invalid and liable to be quashed. 19. In this view of the matter and by following

Gaurav Ajmera, Ratlam vs. DCIT(Central)-2, Indore

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 808/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 274

proceedings u/s 132 of the Act is initiated, and on the other hand the sub-section (2) puts an embargo on imposing of penalty u/s 270A and u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on such undisclosed income falling within the realm of subsection (1). This clearly establishes the solitary ... where the proceedings u/s 132 of the Act is initiated and at the same time it drags out the authorisation of imposition of penalty u/s 270A and 271(1)(c) of the Act as extra-territorial. 10. Keeping aforesaid in mind, we find that, the appellant's contention that

Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

ITA 294/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Venkateswara Nagar Syamalanagar East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh V. Acit - Circle – 1 Ayakkar Bhawan Veerabadhrapuram Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh V. Acit - Circle – 1 Ayakkar Bhawan Veerabadhrapuram Rajahmundry - 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Smt Hemalatha K, Ca Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 05.08.2025 22.08.2025

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

revise the assessment order passed u/s 153C r.ws 143(3) of the IT Act dt.27-09-2022stating that.Ld.AO failed to initiate penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act in the said assessment order. 3. Ld.PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the IT Act with view of initiating penalty ... absence of any satisfaction being recorded bythe Ld. Assessing Officer in his order passed u/s 153C r.W.s 143(3) to initiate levy of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act. 4. Ld.PCIT ought to have appreciated that the levy or non-levy of penalty is at the discretion of Ld.AO

Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi Prasad Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 293/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

revise the assessment order passed u/s 153C r.ws 143(3) of the IT Act dt.27-09-2022stating that.Ld.AO failed to initiate penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act in the said assessment order. 3. Ld.PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the IT Act with view of initiating penalty ... absence of any satisfaction being recorded bythe Ld. Assessing Officer in his order passed u/s 153C r.W.s 143(3) to initiate levy of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act. 4. Ld.PCIT ought to have appreciated that the levy or non-levy of penalty is at the discretion of Ld.AO

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohan Rao Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Cirlce - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

revise the assessment order passed u/s 153C r.ws 143(3) of the IT Act dt.27-09-2022stating that.Ld.AO failed to initiate penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act in the said assessment order. 3. Ld.PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the IT Act with view of initiating penalty ... absence of any satisfaction being recorded bythe Ld. Assessing Officer in his order passed u/s 153C r.W.s 143(3) to initiate levy of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act. 4. Ld.PCIT ought to have appreciated that the levy or non-levy of penalty is at the discretion of Ld.AO

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

revise the assessment order passed u/s 153C r.ws 143(3) of the IT Act dt.27-09-2022stating that.Ld.AO failed to initiate penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act in the said assessment order. 3. Ld.PCIT erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the IT Act with view of initiating penalty ... absence of any satisfaction being recorded bythe Ld. Assessing Officer in his order passed u/s 153C r.W.s 143(3) to initiate levy of penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act. 4. Ld.PCIT ought to have appreciated that the levy or non-levy of penalty is at the discretion of Ld.AO

Koshambh Multitred Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. DR
Section 155(18)Section 250Section 270A(2)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(9)Section 40

allowable on account of the retrospective amendment but allowed earlier, were deemed to be under reported income for purposes of levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. However, the proviso to the sub section carved an exception providing immunity from the levy of penalty, subject to assessees surrendering such ... entitled to benefit from the immunity provided by the said proviso to section 155(18) of the Act from the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act for underreporting of income. 13. In light of the above, we hold, that the penalty levied in the present case under section

Income Tax Officer, C.R. Building, ITO vs. Sunita Gold and Diamonds Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 4039/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Upvan Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Page 1 ITA No.4039/Del/2024 Sunita Gold and Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18) THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH

Subhash Samudayak Sahakari Shetki Sangh Ltd., Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, ITA No.160/PUN/2025 is allowed and ITA

ITA 181/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 270ASection 80P

That the fresh assessment was Order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 17.03.2023 denying deduction u/s 80P and subsequently penalty u/s 270A was passed on 11.09.2023 levying penalty of Rs.16,02,964/-. That the Society was not having adequate professional advice and there was no legal remedy adopted

Subhash Samudayak Sahakari Shetki Sangh Ltd., Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, ITA No.160/PUN/2025 is allowed and ITA

ITA 160/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 270ASection 80P

That the fresh assessment was Order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 17.03.2023 denying deduction u/s 80P and subsequently penalty u/s 270A was passed on 11.09.2023 levying penalty of Rs.16,02,964/-. That the Society was not having adequate professional advice and there was no legal remedy adopted

M/S. K S Technologies, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 685/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683 To 685/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ks Technologies Vs. Income Tax Officer Mahbubnagar Ward – 1 Pan:Aakfk4547L Mahbubnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Siva Prasad, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 3 Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Dated 21/02/2025 & 25/02/2025 Arising From The Penalty Orders Passed U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act For The A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 & Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act For The A.Y 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Siva Prasad, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

learned CIT (A) has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the quantum appeal, therefore, the confirmation of the penalty u/s 270A of the Act is not justified. For the A.Y 2018-19, the assessee has stated that apart from ex-parte orders passed by the learned

M/S.K S Technologies, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 684/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683 To 685/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ks Technologies Vs. Income Tax Officer Mahbubnagar Ward – 1 Pan:Aakfk4547L Mahbubnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Siva Prasad, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 3 Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Dated 21/02/2025 & 25/02/2025 Arising From The Penalty Orders Passed U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act For The A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 & Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act For The A.Y 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Siva Prasad, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

learned CIT (A) has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the quantum appeal, therefore, the confirmation of the penalty u/s 270A of the Act is not justified. For the A.Y 2018-19, the assessee has stated that apart from ex-parte orders passed by the learned