“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

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

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

Ekta Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Virar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(5)/Thane, Thane

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in wrong charging interest u/s 234A, B & C and levying penalty u/s 270A. [B] Relief Prayed: The appellant therefore prays Your Honour; 1) To allow the deduction of Rs. 46,13,533/- claimed u/s ... delete the interest u/s 234A, B & C and penalty u/s 270A. [C] General:- • The appellant reserves rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. • This appeal is filed late and the delay may please be condoned. • A Detailed paper book along with case laws

Rajendra Shivaji Thete, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2431/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajendra Shivaji Thete, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Shivanjali, Plot No.25, H.No.4669, Shivaji Nagar, Ozar Mig, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Abwpt0060C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai : 09.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs. 1,49,704/- On The Ground That The Assesse Had Under Reporting Of Income In Consequence Of Misreporting Of Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 148Section 270A

appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs. 1,49,704/- on the ground that the assesse had under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. In consequence of misreporting without ... complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesse and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesse was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned Commissioner

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 Nanded, Nanded vs. Satyawan Arjunrao Shinde, Osmanabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2109/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1, Nanded. Vs. Satyawan Arjunrao Shinde, Nagar Accident Hospital, Gore Complex, Samta Nagar, Osmanabad- 413501. Pan : Baeps8869J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri B. P. Jaju Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Facts That The Assessee Has Suppressed Professional Receipts Not Shown In His Itr, Ld. Cit(A)-12, Pune Vide Letter Dtd.02/01/2023 Directed That Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A Of The Act May Be Initiated By The Ao At The Time Of Giving Effect To The Appeal Order Dtd.28/11/2022. Accordingly Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings As Per Clause (E) Of Sub-Section 9 Of Section 270A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri B. P. JajuFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 133ASection 2Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274Section 9

represents professional income only. The Assessing Officer then wrote a letter to Ld. CIT(A), Pune-12 and asked the permission to levy penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act. Ld. CIT(A), Pune-12 replied on 02.01.2023 that : “penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the IT is consequential ... basis of above letter received from Ld. CIT(A), Pune-12 and since the assessee has not replied, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 270A(9)(e) of the IT Act. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty u/s 270A(9)(e) by observing

Prashant Balasaheb Kage, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2021/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(8)

appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs.1,08,470/- on the ground that the assesse had underreporting of income in consequence of misreporting his income. In consequence of misreporting without appreciating that ... complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesse and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesse was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned Commissioner

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Adarsh Heights Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1949/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 253Section 270A

with the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who allowed the appeal of the assessee deleting the penalty u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved with the appeal order, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The finding ... fair enough to inform the Bench that the quantum addition in this case has been deleted and therefore, the penalty u/s 270A of the Act is not liable to be sustained. 5. Since the quantum addition has been deleted, therefore, there is neither any under reported income nor any under

Vijay Kumar Mittal, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 142/RAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274

case. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: "1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, no penalty u/s 270A should had been levied, hence, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs. 9,24,016/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation ... capital gains to buy peace and the return of income was also accepted by the AO. Subsequently, notice was issued for initiation of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. The AO imposed the penalty accordingly and this order was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 6. Before the ld.CIT

Vijay Kumar Mittal, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 141/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274

Drishti Ek Pahal Samajik Sansthan, Bareilly vs. ACIT/ITO, Bareilly

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

ITA 764/LKW/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Drishti Ek Pahal Samajik Acit/Ito V. Sansthan Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. Vijauliya Road, Near College Field, Nawabganj, Bareilly- 243001. Pan:Aabad4706P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Cost Acct Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B. P. Yadav, Cost AcctFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 10Section 270A

scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer after considering the materials available on record, came to conclusion that it being the fit case for levying penalty u/s 270A i.e. @ 50% of the tax sought to be evaded. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed

Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2140/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2140/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Santosh Ashokrao Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Barhanpurkar, Flat No.B-8, Deepali Appt., Near Bus Stop Mahatmangar, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aawpb8671N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs. 1,15,938/- On The Ground That The Assesse Had Under-Reported As A Consequence Of Misreporting Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 147Section 148Section 270A

appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs. 1,15,938/- on the ground that the assesse had under-reported as a consequence of misreporting of income without appreciating that the said levy ... complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesse and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesse was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned Commissioner

Rajendra Shyamkant Shivrame, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2 (1), Nashik

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

ITA 936/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 147Section 148Section 270A

appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs.1,71,616/- on the ground that the assesse had under reported and mis reported his income. In consequence of misreporting without appreciating that the said ... complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesse and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesse was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned Commissioner

Rajendra Shyamkant Shivrame, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 935/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 147Section 148Section 270A

Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2132/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

year 2016-17 and was replaced by a new section i.e. 270A of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer under similar facts imposed penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act for assessment year 2017-18. As the facts of the case have already been discussed in preceding paragraphs, we proceed ... u/s 147/148 were issued to the assessee and the assessee furnished return in response to above notices and disclosed the correct income assessment. Penalty u/s 270A was initiated in the assessment order and subsequently penalty of Rs.66,332/- u/s 270A(9) was imposed for underreporting of income as a consequence

Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2131/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2131 & 2132/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Santosh Ashokrao Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Barhanpurkar, Flat No.B-8, Deepali Appt., Near Bus Stop Mahatmanagar, Nashik- 422007. Pan: Aawpb8671N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2131/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2016-17.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

year 2016-17 and was replaced by a new section i.e. 270A of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer under similar facts imposed penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act for assessment year 2017-18. As the facts of the case have already been discussed in preceding paragraphs, we proceed ... furnished return in response to above notices and disclosed the correct income which was accepted by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. Penalty u/s 270A was initiated in the assessment order and subsequently penalty of Rs.66,332/- u/s 270A(9) was imposed for underreporting of income as a consequence

Sanjay Gulabchand Gupta, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 210/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

Therefore a sum of Rs 1,58,64,162/-is disallowed as deduction and added back to the returned income of the assessee. Penalty u/s 270A(9) initiated separately for misreporting of income. 5. After perusal of uploaded documents, the total income of assessee is computed as under:– Amount

Poona Shims Kamagarsahakari Patsanstha, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9(3), Pune

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

ITA 2332/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2332/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Poona Shimsari Vs Ito, Ward 9(3), Kamgarsahkari Patsanstha, Pune Mumbai Pune Highway, Vadgaon Maval Pune- 412106 Maharashtra Pan-Aadap9903D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P. KumarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

alteram partem'. 3. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in confirming the penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act, imposed by the Ld. AO to the tune of Rs. 4,18,664/- for FY 2016-17 pertaining ... appellant. 6. That, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) NFAC has erred in not appreciating the penalty u/s 270A in the case of the assessee on account of disallowance of 80P deduction cannot be levied on account of underreporting of income in consequence

Ats Elgi Limited, Coimbatore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 2368/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2368/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 Ats Elgi Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.S2/A-11, Private Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle-1, Pollachi Main Road, Kurichy, Coimbatore Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641024. [Pan: Aagca2220F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

Section 250Section 270ASection 35

Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only issue seminal to the controversy is the action of the Ld. AO in levying the penalty u/s 270A of Rs.41,48,710/- for under reporting of income. The Ld. AO had levied the penalty with respect to assessee’s claim of deduction

Hiranand Family Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6335/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrihiranand Family Trust V/S. Ito Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai 6Th Floor, Mistry Bhavan, बनाम Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Dinshaw Vaccha Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra Churchgate, Mumbai- East, Mumbai-400051 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Mumh10606B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 139(9)Section 250Section 270ASection 44A

learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming that the Appellant has underreported its income and accordingly liable to pay penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the particulars of Interest Income in the Schedule of Profit and Loss of the Return ... assessee’s notice, he initiated steps to rectify the mistake. We, therefore, hold that is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 270A for under reporting of income, and therefore, the penalty order dated 02.03.2022 is set aside. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

M/S. Ramakrishna Educational Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions 4, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse for ITA No

ITA 2923/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2923/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2922/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S.Ramakrishna Educational Income Tax Officer Charitable Trust, Exemptions-4, No.53, South Bazaar Street, Chennai. Pattabiram, Chennai-72. [Pan: Aagts0203H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri K.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopalakrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 250Section 270A

confirmation by the Ld.CIT(A). Similarly the only issue under consideration in ITA No.2923 is the action of the Ld. AO in imposing penalty u/s 270A of the act and its confirmation by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that both

M/S. Ramakrishna Educational Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions 4, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse for ITA No

ITA 2922/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopalakrishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 250Section 270A

Infoanalytica Consulting Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the penalty u/s

ITA 1592/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 40

under- reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereon” mentioning that the Ld. AO has recorded satisfaction for the initiation of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. Further, the AO has imposed penalty @200% on the amount of tax payable as per the provisions of Section 270A