← 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

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 683/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

Kudos, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Pune

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 372/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.372/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Kudos, Acit, Circle-7, Pune 40, M.G. Road, Camp, Pune-411001 Vs. Maharashtra Pan-Aaofk3546M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri C.V. Deshpande Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 06-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri C.V. DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

made for delay in depositing Employees contribution towards PF and ESI. On the said addition penalty u/s 270A has been levied at Rs. 2,38,688/- Against the quantum addition the assessee succeeded in the appeal before this Tribunal vide order dated 28.06.2022 in ITA No. 401/PUN/2021 and the disallowance

Podduturi Rajashekhar Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 739/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 197Section 263Section 270ASection 270A(9)

based on his aforesaid observations, held a firm conviction, that the failure on the part of the A.O. to levy penalty u/s 270A for the underreporting of income of Rs. 20 lacs (supra) by the assessee 8 Podduturi Rajasekhar Reddy had rendered his order as erroneous insofar it was prejudicial ... that as the A.O. had after necessary deliberations and application of mind taken a possible view and 10 Podduturi Rajasekhar Reddy not imposed penalty u/s 270A of the Act, regarding the income of Rs. 20 lacs (supra) that was disclosed by the assessee in his return of income filed

Excel Telesonic India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 3572/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sharath RaoFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Therefore, the Appellant prays that the interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Act be deleted. GROUND NO. IV: INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 270A AND 271AAC OF THE ACT: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTT(A) erred in confirming

Urmila Rajendra Mundra, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ajmer

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)

this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “That Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has wrongly confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 270A of Rs. 2,03,488/- considering disallowances of interest capitalized of Rs. 4,89,159/- for calculation of capital gain (index value ... lower authorities. The assessee has raised the solitary ground challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of Rs. 2,03,488/- considering disallowances of interest capitalized of Rs. 4,89,159/- for calculation of capital gain. Record reveals that against

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 1055/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

applicable in case of penalty u/s 270 A as the both the penalty provisions are analogous. The AO had clearly initiated the penalty u/s 270A for 'under reporting of income' and the final penalty order was also passed for 'under reporting of income and as such the conditions of Section ... return filed under Section 153A of the Act. 10.1 We find that from assessment year 2017-18 onward penalty u/s 270A of the Act for under reporting and miss-reporting of income has been introduced. In the present case, the assessee has been held to be under reported his income

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY

ITA 1050/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

applicable in case of penalty u/s 270 A as the both the penalty provisions are analogous. The AO had clearly initiated the penalty u/s 270A for 'under reporting of income' and the final penalty order was also passed for 'under reporting of income and as such the conditions of Section ... return filed under Section 153A of the Act. 10.1 We find that from assessment year 2017-18 onward penalty u/s 270A of the Act for under reporting and miss-reporting of income has been introduced. In the present case, the assessee has been held to be under reported his income

Swaran Nadhan Salaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014-15 to AY

ITA 1049/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

applicable in case of penalty u/s 270 A as the both the penalty provisions are analogous. The AO had clearly initiated the penalty u/s 270A for 'under reporting of income' and the final penalty order was also passed for 'under reporting of income and as such the conditions of Section ... return filed under Section 153A of the Act. 10.1 We find that from assessment year 2017-18 onward penalty u/s 270A of the Act for under reporting and miss-reporting of income has been introduced. In the present case, the assessee has been held to be under reported his income

Nine Export LLP, Johari Bazar, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 701/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Ms. Twinkle Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 270A

case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) was wrong and unjust in confirming the action of Assessing Officer who has levied the Penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act, 1961 which is void ab-initio deserves to be quashed as there was no escapement of income

Nine Export LLP, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 700/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Ms. Twinkle Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 270A

case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) was wrong and unjust in confirming the action of Assessing Officer who has levied the Penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act, 1961 which is void ab-initio deserves to be quashed as there was no escapement of income

Sarvam Developers, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (2) (2), Vadodara

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

ITA 181/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 144Section 270Section 270A

assessment order was set aside to the file of AO by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have considered the rival submissions. The penalty u/s 270A of the Act was initiated in the course of assessment proceeding completed u/s 144 of the Act dated 10.12.2019. The assessee had filed

Pramod Sangwan, Rohtak vs. DCIT, CC-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6119/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act when the penalty notice had not struck off the inappropriate portion as to whether the assessee had under-reported his income

Pramod Sangwan, Rohtak vs. DCIT, CC-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6118/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act when the penalty notice had not struck off the inappropriate portion as to whether the assessee had under-reported his income

Pramod Sangwan, Rohtak vs. DCIT CC-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6117/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act when the penalty notice had not struck off the inappropriate portion as to whether the assessee had under-reported his income

Md. Mahatab Alam, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 116/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Lalatendu Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the A.Ys. 2015-16, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, as also the penalty u/s 270A of the Act for A.Y. 2017-18 is quashed. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. 06. In the result

Md. Mahatab Alam, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 115/CTK/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Lalatendu Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)

levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the A.Ys. 2015-16, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17, as also the penalty u/s 270A of the Act for A.Y. 2017-18 is quashed. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. 06. In the result

Interviewbit Software Services Private Limited (Formerly Interviewbit Software Services LLP), Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle 7, Pune

In the result both the appeals ITA No

ITA 831/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.828 & 831/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-2022 M/S Interviewbit Software Acit, Circle-7, Pune Services Private Limited (Formerly ‘Interviewbit Vs. Software Services Llp) Sy No. 91/1, 91/2, 91/3 Surya Park 2, Hosur Road, Electronic City Phase 4, Veerasandra Village, Bengaluru, Karnataka- 560100 Maharashtra Pan-Aaff13588N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri S Dwarakesh & Prasad Sancheti Department By: Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22-07-2025 Date Of 20-08-2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S Dwarakesh & PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

u/s 270A of the Act dated 26.05.2023. 2. We note that the assessee has challenged the quantum addition in ITA No. 828/PUN/2025 and penalty u/s 270A of the Act for A.Y. 2021-22 in ITA No. 831/PUN/2025. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that inspite ... filed against the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act on the additions made in the hands of assessee for A.Y. 2021- 22. Penalty u/s 270A of the Act is dependant on the quantum additions which in the instant case have been challenged in the ITA No.828/PUN/2025 and has been

Interviewbit Software Services LLP, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle 7, Pune

In the result both the appeals ITA No

ITA 828/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.828 & 831/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-2022 M/S Interviewbit Software Acit, Circle-7, Pune Services Private Limited (Formerly ‘Interviewbit Vs. Software Services Llp) Sy No. 91/1, 91/2, 91/3 Surya Park 2, Hosur Road, Electronic City Phase 4, Veerasandra Village, Bengaluru, Karnataka- 560100 Maharashtra Pan-Aaff13588N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Shri S Dwarakesh & Prasad Sancheti Department By: Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22-07-2025 Date Of 20-08-2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S Dwarakesh & PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

u/s 270A of the Act dated 26.05.2023. 2. We note that the assessee has challenged the quantum addition in ITA No. 828/PUN/2025 and penalty u/s 270A of the Act for A.Y. 2021-22 in ITA No. 831/PUN/2025. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that inspite ... filed against the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act on the additions made in the hands of assessee for A.Y. 2021- 22. Penalty u/s 270A of the Act is dependant on the quantum additions which in the instant case have been challenged in the ITA No.828/PUN/2025 and has been

Sri Ganessh Chit Fund, Ganjam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Berhampur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 58/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Sri Ganesh Chit Fund Hanuman Bazar, Gundalavari Ito, Ward-2, Berhampur Street Brahmapur Ganjam- Odisha Vs. 760002, Orissa (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aawfs5606G Assessee By : Shri Bibhuti Bhusan Panda, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nishanth Rao B, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Bibhuti Bhusan Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nishanth Rao B, DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271A

been paid and the penalty proceedings were requested to be dropped. It was the submission that the ld. AO proceeded to levy the penalty u/s 270A of the Act and the ld. CIT (A), NFAC has confirmed the said levy of penalty u/s 270A ... Berhampur(Gm), Odisha PAN-AAWFS5606G Asst. Yr.-2017-2018 To. The Income-Tax officer, Ward-2, Berhampur (Gm) Sub: Requesting for dropping of penalty U/S 270A of I.T. Act, 1961. Payment of Tax Vide Challan No-00001, Dated-03/01/2020. Ref: Notice No-ITBA/AST/S/156/2019-20/1022482847(1), Dated -16/12/2019 vide

M/S. Green Earth Biogas Pvt. Ltd., Surendranagar vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 185/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.185/Rjt/2023

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 263

paid in cash by the assessee for buying of petrol and diesel from Vrundavan Petrol Pump on 13/11/2016, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty u/s 270A(1) of the Act. However, Assessing Officer has failed to impose penalty u/s 270A(1) of the Act, in respect of disallowance of preliminary ... operative expenses of Rs.70,71,531/-, holding that the penalty u/s 270A(1) not imposable vide order dated 18.10.2019 wherein assessing officer has observed as under : "Considering the submission of the assessee, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s.270A(1) is hereby dropped and penalty is to be levied in respect