← 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

The Uppilipalayam Mill Industrial Workers Coop House Construction Society Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), 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

The Uppilipalayam Mill Industrial Workers Coop House Construction Society Ltd., Coimbatore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 3897/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

Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Income Tax Department, Mumbai

ITA 6680/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 270ASection 80G

facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) has erred in retaining the penalty u/s 270A of the Act vide CIT(A) order dated 12 August 2025. The said penalty was originally imposed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) vide penalty ... automatic or mechanical 5.1 On facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO/CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that penalty u/s 270A of the Act is not automatic or mechanical and cannot be imposed merely because a disallowance has been made, especially where the Appellant company

Messe Frankfurt Trade Fairs India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6498/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 270ASection 80G

facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (“Ld. CIT(A)”) has erred in retaining the penalty u/s 270A of the Act vide CIT(A) order dated 12 August 2025. The said penalty was originally imposed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) vide penalty ... automatic or mechanical 5.1 On facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO/CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that penalty u/s 270A of the Act is not automatic or mechanical and cannot be imposed merely because a disallowance has been made, especially where the Appellant company

Shiv Ratan Education Society, Haridwar vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 9

however, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A(9)(a) of the Act for misrepresentation of the facts. 3. Thereafter, the AO imposed the penalty u/s 270A of Rs.15,44,310/- being 200% of the tax sought to be evaded which penalty stood confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved ... considering the revised computation of income had accepted the claim of the assessee and assessed the income at Nil. However, while imposing the penalty u/s 270A of the Act, the AO had ignored this fact of claim of application towards capital assets and if the same is considered there would

Ashutosh Dubey, Kanjurmarg vs. DCIT Circle-8, Pune

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

ITA 2215/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2215/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ashutosh Dubey, V Income Tax Officer, Tower 8, Flat No.3201, Runwal S Circle-8, Pune. Forest, Lbs Road, Kanjurmarg West, Maharashtra – 400078 Pan: Ajppd0173M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Amar Pandey (Virtual) Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/02/2026

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 270ASection 274(2)Section 5

committed default by under reporting of income as defined u/s 270A of the Act. As such, this is fit case for levy of penalty u/s 270A of the act. The amount of Rs.32,23,520/- represents the under reported income of the assessee within the meaning of section 270A ... rejects the immunity application filed u/s 270AA of the Act the assessee can file appeal against penalty order passed by AO levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act in accordance with provisions of section 246A of the Act. 6.4 Thus, in the given case rejection of immunity

Ruchi Stock & Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7653/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270A(1)

whom the Assessing Officer heavily relied. 2) The Assessing Officer wrongly charged interest u/s 234A, B, C and D and also initiated penalty u/s 270A(1). 3) In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Addl. CIT [A] erred in confirming the same

Mustafa Alihusain Sunelwala, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 274Section 54F

/NFAC and also in the absence of any satisfactory explanation offered by the assessee, it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. He, therefore, levied penalty of Rs.15,48,234/- being 200% of tax payable on underreported income u/s 270A of the Act vide

Narrotam Morarjee Institute of Shipping, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)Ward 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5559/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Narrotam Morarjee Institute Of National Faceless Shipping, Mumbai Assessment Appeal Centre 76 – Jolly Maker, Chambers – 2, (Nfac) Office Of The Vs. Vivek Shah, Mumbai, Nariman Commissioner Of Income Point S.O.-400021 Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A) Delhi (Pan : Aaatn0042R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025- 26/1078465227(1) Dated 14.07.2025 Passed Against The Penalty Order U/S. 270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi ["The Cit (A)") U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["The Act For Short Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Passed

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 250Section 270A

Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi ["the CIT (A)") u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act for short erred in confirming the penalty u/s 270A of the Act passed 2 Narottam Morarjee Institute of Shipping AY 2018-19 by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre ["the NFAC ... short] which is in fact contrary to the extant law and therefore void. 2. While so affirming the penalty u/s 270A the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that: a) The Appellant is a charitable trust and its entire income is exempt from tax u/s 11 of the Act since

National Insurance Company Limited, New Town vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2806/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

NFAC failed to appreciate that there had not occurred any case of misreporting of Income which could lead to the levying of any Penalty u/s 270A and thus he erred in confirming levying of Penalty of Rs.11,52,05,880. 3) That the appellant craves leave to add, delete

National Insurance Company Limited, New Town vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2804/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

NFAC failed to appreciate that there had not occurred any case of misreporting of Income which could lead to the levying of any Penalty u/s 270A and thus he erred in confirming levying of Penalty of Rs.11,52,05,880. 3) That the appellant craves leave to add, delete

National Insurance Company Limited, New Town vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2803/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

NFAC failed to appreciate that there had not occurred any case of misreporting of Income which could lead to the levying of any Penalty u/s 270A and thus he erred in confirming levying of Penalty of Rs.11,52,05,880. 3) That the appellant craves leave to add, delete

Uday Uttamrao Nevase, Pune vs. The Assessing Officer / Assessment Unit, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2606/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2606/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Uday Uttamrao Nevase, V The Assessing Officer / Saugandh Niwas, Hind Colony S Assessment Unit, Pune. Lane No.1 A, Bhekrai Nagar, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Pan: Akqpn1150Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Rohan Gupta Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 04.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 270A, Dated 17.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Ground 1 Section 270Aa Immunity Cit A Erred In Law By Confirming The Penalty Of Rs 629382 Under Section 270A Without Considering And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

received was allowed for Rs.1,28,777/- only and Rs.86,593/- was added in total income of the assessee. Show cause notices for penalty u/s 270A ware issued to the assessee on 20.03.2024 and 29.04.2024. Subsequently, a reminder to the said show cause notices was also issued on 31.05.2024 regarding ... assessee had wrong intention in respect of claiming and getting of refund. I am satisfied that the assessee is liable for imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act on under reported income in consequence of misreporting thereof for Rs. 11,51,593/- for the year under consideration. Accordingly, penalty

Kamal Shadija, Indore vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Epartment, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 637/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2020-21 Kamal Shadija Assessment Unit 156, Palsikar Colony, Income Tax Department बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Azsps4490H Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2026

Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 57

penalty of Rs. 91,168/- u/s 270A. Page 1 of 13 Kamal Shadija ITA No. 637/Ind/2025 – AY 2020-21 2. The levy of penalty u/s 270A is illegal and bad in law since there is no under reporting and mis-reporting of income. The assessee is paying interest in earlier ... assessee accepted the disallowance made by AO. (ii) In the assessment-order passed as above, the AO also initiated proceeding for imposition of penalty u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. Simultaneously, the AO also issued show-cause notice to assessee seeking an explanation as to why the penalty should

Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee, Jalpaiguri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jalpaiguri

Accordingly, ITA No. 2763/Kol/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2797/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and ITA Nos.2762, 2797 & 2798/Kol/2025 are related to consequential penalty u/s 270A, u/s 270A & u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. Since all the above captioned appeals were filed by the same assessee and involve common issues

Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee, Jalpaiguri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jalpaiguri

Accordingly, ITA No. 2763/Kol/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2763/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and ITA Nos.2762, 2797 & 2798/Kol/2025 are related to consequential penalty u/s 270A, u/s 270A & u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. Since all the above captioned appeals were filed by the same assessee and involve common issues

Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee, Jalpaiguri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jalpaiguri

Accordingly, ITA No. 2763/Kol/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2762/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and ITA Nos.2762, 2797 & 2798/Kol/2025 are related to consequential penalty u/s 270A, u/s 270A & u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. Since all the above captioned appeals were filed by the same assessee and involve common issues

ACIT, Delhi vs. Manik Wadhwa, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 4349/DEL/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon'Ble

Section 119Section 270A

4349_DEL_2025_Manik Wadhwa IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH

Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee, Jalpaiguri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jalpaiguri

Accordingly, ITA No. 2763/Kol/2025 is allowed for

ITA 2798/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and ITA Nos.2762, 2797 & 2798/Kol/2025 are related to consequential penalty u/s 270A, u/s 270A & u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. Since all the above captioned appeals were filed by the same assessee and involve common issues

M/S Eklavya Estate Pvt.Ltd., Ranchi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Eklavya Estate Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., H-95, Harmu Housing Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aabce 5815 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133ASection 270ASection 274

income was not mentioned and as such, the notice was defective. 3) That even on the merits we would like to state that penalty U/s 270A is uncalled for since the addition in dispute pertains to estimation of Gross Profit @ 10% after rejecting the books of the assessee. We would