← 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

Soregam Sa, Belgium vs. ACIT International Taxationtax Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1918/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

appeal in ITA No.1923/Del/2025 is filed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act for AY 2017-18. SHRI VINOD JINDAL 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that penalty orders passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 270A are invalid ... misreporting its income, to the tune of Rs.3,94,996/-. Therefore, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The amount of penalty that is to be levied for the fault of under reporting income in consequence

Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Junnar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2434/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2428 & 2434/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Department. Maryadit, Arvi Junnar- 412401. Pan : Aagas3985H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2434/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69ASection 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

No.2428/PUN/2024 : 12. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. AO erred in levying (Ld. CIT-A erred in confirming) penalty u/s 270A of Rs.15,68,978/-. 2. The Penalty order passed by AO be quashed as the Assessing Officer who initiated penalty has not specified appropriate ... assessment order Further even the show cause notice issued does not specify the specific limb in which the penalty u/s 270A is being levied. 3. The Ld. AO erred in levying and CIT(A) confirming penalty in respect of the addition on account of disallowance of claim u/s

Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Junnar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2428/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2428 & 2434/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Department. Maryadit, Arvi Junnar- 412401. Pan : Aagas3985H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2434/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69ASection 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

No.2428/PUN/2024 : 12. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. AO erred in levying (Ld. CIT-A erred in confirming) penalty u/s 270A of Rs.15,68,978/-. 2. The Penalty order passed by AO be quashed as the Assessing Officer who initiated penalty has not specified appropriate ... assessment order Further even the show cause notice issued does not specify the specific limb in which the penalty u/s 270A is being levied. 3. The Ld. AO erred in levying and CIT(A) confirming penalty in respect of the addition on account of disallowance of claim u/s

Arun Narayan Chavan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 6053/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Arun Narayan Chavan Dcit Circle D-75, Nandadeep Chsl 42(2)(1) Deonar Municipal Colony Vs. Kautilya Bhavan Govandi West Bkc, Bandra-E Mumbai-400 043. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aabpc0126C Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri K. Gopal & Ms
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 80C

ground of appeal during the appeal hearing and the same is reproduced : “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order levying penalty u/s 270A(9)(a) for under reporting of income inconsequence of misrepresentation of facts is not a valid order since the same is not in accordance

Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT(It)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5677/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Chennai bench of Tribunal has held in the case of S Saroja (supra) that bonafide mistake committed while computing total income, the penalty u/s 270A of the Act should not be levied. 17. The ratio laid down in the above decision is that the levy of penalty under section 270A

Connerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3753/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Chennai bench of Tribunal has held in the case of S Saroja (supra) that bonafide mistake committed while computing total income, the penalty u/s 270A of the Act should not be levied. 17. The ratio laid down in the above decision is that the levy of penalty under section 270A

Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3752/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Chennai bench of Tribunal has held in the case of S Saroja (supra) that bonafide mistake committed while computing total income, the penalty u/s 270A of the Act should not be levied. 17. The ratio laid down in the above decision is that the levy of penalty under section 270A

Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3751/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Chennai bench of Tribunal has held in the case of S Saroja (supra) that bonafide mistake committed while computing total income, the penalty u/s 270A of the Act should not be levied. 17. The ratio laid down in the above decision is that the levy of penalty under section 270A

Cornerstone Ondemand Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation )-291)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3747/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AR
Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

Chennai bench of Tribunal has held in the case of S Saroja (supra) that bonafide mistake committed while computing total income, the penalty u/s 270A of the Act should not be levied. 17. The ratio laid down in the above decision is that the levy of penalty under section 270A

Pankaj Mani Kulshreshtha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 19/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

case the Ld. A.O. grossly erred in initiating the penalty proceeding u/s 271B of the IT Act. As far as initiation of penalty u/s 270A(9), 271AAC, 272(1)(d) and 271B are concerned penalty is a separate proceeding hence not adjudicated upon. Hence ground

Rockfield Mining Minerals Private Limited, Siuri vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi

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

ITA 1024/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The Dey. Commissioner (Appeals) Was Disposed Of By Order Dated 02Nd May 2024 Passed By Dy. Commissioner (Appeals). 2. That The Time For Filing Of The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was To Expire On 01St August 2023. 2 Rockfield Mining Minerals Private Limited 3. That The Attorney Of The Assessee Company Mr. Kalyan Bose Was Physically Aged & Unwell Thus Due To Unavoidable Medical Emergencies The Appeal Could Not Be Filed. 4. That The Memo Of Appeal Has Been Filed On 06Th May 2024 In The Office Of The Tribunal.” 1.1 Considering The Reasons Given, The Delay Is Hereby Condoned.

Section 250Section 270A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2018-19. 2.1 In this case, the Ld. AO levied a penalty u/s 270A of the Act vide his order dated 01.01.2022. This penalty is seen to have been levied in terms of a quantum order dated

Hooghly Urban Peoples Service Co-Operative Society, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1411/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanajy Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri C. M. Roy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

shall stand confirmed. 6. Now, we take up ITA No. 1410/Kol/2024. In this appeal, the assessee has agitated against the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act in regard to the assessment against which the quantum appeal has been filed in ITA No. 1409/Kol/2024. As we have restored

Hooghly Urban Peoples Service Co-Operative Society, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1410/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanajy Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri C. M. Roy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

shall stand confirmed. 6. Now, we take up ITA No. 1410/Kol/2024. In this appeal, the assessee has agitated against the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act in regard to the assessment against which the quantum appeal has been filed in ITA No. 1409/Kol/2024. As we have restored

Hooghly Urban Peoples Service Co-Operative Society, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1409/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanajy Awasthi

For Appellant: Shri C. M. Roy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

shall stand confirmed. 6. Now, we take up ITA No. 1410/Kol/2024. In this appeal, the assessee has agitated against the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act in regard to the assessment against which the quantum appeal has been filed in ITA No. 1409/Kol/2024. As we have restored

Sapna Partha Gadre, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-22(3)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 365/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 250Section 270A

hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2018-19, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against levy of penalty u/s 270A was dismissed 2 Sapna Partha Gadre on account of delay in filing the appeal and in absence of necessary explanation offered by the assessee

Jayanta Khaund, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 223/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

hearing of Appeal. ITA No. 222/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances of the case learned A.O. is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs.2,32,362/- 2. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time ... 221/Gau/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. The appeal in ITA No. 222/GTY/2024 relates to penalty u/s 270A of the Act while appeal in ITA No. 223/GTY/2024 relates to penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act for the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. Since the assessment orders relating

Jayanta Khaund, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 222/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

hearing of Appeal. ITA No. 222/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances of the case learned A.O. is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs.2,32,362/- 2. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time ... 221/Gau/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. The appeal in ITA No. 222/GTY/2024 relates to penalty u/s 270A of the Act while appeal in ITA No. 223/GTY/2024 relates to penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act for the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. Since the assessment orders relating

Jayanta Khaund, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 221/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

hearing of Appeal. ITA No. 222/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances of the case learned A.O. is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs.2,32,362/- 2. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time ... 221/Gau/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. The appeal in ITA No. 222/GTY/2024 relates to penalty u/s 270A of the Act while appeal in ITA No. 223/GTY/2024 relates to penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act for the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. Since the assessment orders relating

Jayanta Khaund, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 220/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

hearing of Appeal. ITA No. 222/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances of the case learned A.O. is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs.2,32,362/- 2. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time ... 221/Gau/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. The appeal in ITA No. 222/GTY/2024 relates to penalty u/s 270A of the Act while appeal in ITA No. 223/GTY/2024 relates to penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act for the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. Since the assessment orders relating

Jayanta Khaund, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir-1, Guwahati

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

ITA 219/GTY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

hearing of Appeal. ITA No. 222/GTY/2024: 1. For that under the facts & circumstances of the case learned A.O. is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs.2,32,362/- 2. The Appellant craves the leave to take Additional Grounds and/or amend the above grounds of appeal at the time ... 221/Gau/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. The appeal in ITA No. 222/GTY/2024 relates to penalty u/s 270A of the Act while appeal in ITA No. 223/GTY/2024 relates to penalty u/s 271AAC of the Act for the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. Since the assessment orders relating