← 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

Premjeet Singh, Dabha Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 521/NAG/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 10Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(i)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 270A

agree with the proposed adjustment and accept the same for the best interest of the department. However, we hereby request to waive any penalty u/s 270A since we have disclosed full facts and figures and have not kept any facts and figures hidden from you. Also, we missed fling Form

Mikuni India Private Limited, Alwar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

ITA 745/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Agarwal, C.A. (Through V.C.) &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 194C(5)Section 263Section 270ASection 92CSection 94C

Learned PCIT had observed that the Assessing Officer was bound by law to initiate proceeding against the assessee therein on the point of penalty u/s 270A of the Act, in every assessment proceedings, and that the non initiation of penalty proceedings rendered the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial

ITO, Ward-1, Palanpur vs. Gelot Agri Exports, Palanpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/AHD/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(8)Section 40

treating only incomes assessed over and above that determined u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act as underreported income liable to levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. The purport, objective and intention of law , derived from section 270A(2)(a), by treating only income assessed which is greater

Gelot Agri Exports, Deesa vs. ITO WD 1 Palanpur, Banaskantha

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, while that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1 Vs. Gelot Agri Exports Palanpur, Banaskantha At 13, Aditya Complex Gujarat. Opp: Jalaram Temple Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gelot Agri Exports Vs. Ito, Ward-1 At 13, Aditya Complex Palanpur, Banaskantha Opp: Jalaram Temple Gujarat. Deesa 385 535. Pan : Aapfg 5455 N

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(8)Section 40

treating only incomes assessed over and above that determined u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act as underreported income liable to levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. The purport, objective and intention of law , derived from section 270A(2)(a), by treating only income assessed which is greater

Geetha, Salem vs. ITO, Ward1(1), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2431/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2429/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2430/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2431/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 Smt. Geetha, Income Tax Officer, No.14/2, Periyar Nagar, Ward-1(1), Old Suramangalam, Salem Salem, Tamil Nadu-636005. [Pan: Bdmpg5919G]

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 270ASection 270DSection 271D

vide order dated 21.03.2022 may be dismissed and that rest of the matters regarding the quantum addition vide order dated 16.03.2023 and penalty u/s 270A dated 26.09.2023 may be send back to the Ld. AO for readjudication de novo. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material ... determination of ITA Nos.2429, 2430 & 2431/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: taxable income of the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the act, issue of levy of any penalty u/s. 270A and of penalty u/s 270D after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by passing a speaking order. The assessee shall

Geetha, Salem vs. ITO, Ward (1) Salem, Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2430/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2429/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2430/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2431/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 Smt. Geetha, Income Tax Officer, No.14/2, Periyar Nagar, Ward-1(1), Old Suramangalam, Salem Salem, Tamil Nadu-636005. [Pan: Bdmpg5919G]

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 270ASection 270DSection 271D

vide order dated 21.03.2022 may be dismissed and that rest of the matters regarding the quantum addition vide order dated 16.03.2023 and penalty u/s 270A dated 26.09.2023 may be send back to the Ld. AO for readjudication de novo. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material ... determination of ITA Nos.2429, 2430 & 2431/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: taxable income of the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the act, issue of levy of any penalty u/s. 270A and of penalty u/s 270D after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by passing a speaking order. The assessee shall

Geetha, Salem vs. ITO, Ward(1), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2429/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2429/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2430/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2431/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 Smt. Geetha, Income Tax Officer, No.14/2, Periyar Nagar, Ward-1(1), Old Suramangalam, Salem Salem, Tamil Nadu-636005. [Pan: Bdmpg5919G]

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 270ASection 270DSection 271D

vide order dated 21.03.2022 may be dismissed and that rest of the matters regarding the quantum addition vide order dated 16.03.2023 and penalty u/s 270A dated 26.09.2023 may be send back to the Ld. AO for readjudication de novo. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material ... determination of ITA Nos.2429, 2430 & 2431/Chny/2024 :- 4 -: taxable income of the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the act, issue of levy of any penalty u/s. 270A and of penalty u/s 270D after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by passing a speaking order. The assessee shall

Criteo Singapore Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Ciricle 1(2)(1) International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2122/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT- DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

direct the AO to delete the said addition. Accordingly, Ground No. 2.1 is allowed. 59. The ground no 1.5 relates to initiation of penalty u/s 270A. The same being premature the same is dismissed. 60. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2122/DEL/2023 is partly allowed

Saket Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 1112/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 5

separate adjudication especially in absence of documents/evidence on the part of the appellant. 6.5. The fifth ground of appeal is related to initiating penalty u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961. This ground of appeals is premature. 6.5.1. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed as premature. 6.6. The sixth

Terra Infra Development Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 270A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 08/03/2024 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 3. The order imposing penalty u/s 270A of I.T. Act 1961 at Rs.79,132/- is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 2 Terra Infra Development Ltd. 4. The order imposing penalty without ... 270AA of I.T. Act 1961 and requisite conditions for grant of immunity being available on record. 6. The learned A.O. erred in levying penalty u/s 270A of I.T. Act 1961 by holding that assessee has under reported income. 7. Levy of penalty u/s 270A of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified

Arif Hussain, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1274/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 27CSection 69A

reporting income of Rs. 17,67,466/under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The order levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act dated 14/02/2024 is bad in law in as much as no satisfaction has been recorded in the order of assessment u/s ... circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned Assessment Unit ought to have exercised its discretion and refrained from imposing penalty u/s 270A of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 7. Without prejudice to the above, the penalty levied

Kag India Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Circle -2, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1366/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 263Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)Section 271(1)

declaring Rs.17,39,87,310/-, it tantamount to admitting Rs.7,09,63,795/- as its undisclosed income and failed to initiate penalty u/s. 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order dated 25.03.2022 had only initiated penalty u/s. 270A ... have initiated penalty for underreporting consequent to misreporting for the entire undisclosed income of Rs.7,41,89,422/-. Instead erred in initiating penalty u/s. 270A for underreporting of income of Rs.32,25,627/-. To that extent the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue

Dacss Granites Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1876/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Balram R. Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)Section 270ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

penalty was not exigible for under reporting. In response the assessee filed its reply objecting to the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. The AO without considering the same levied a penalty of Rs.7,61,400/- towards under reporting of income. 2.1. The relevant observations

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

Assessed income Rs. 7,28,01,360/- This order is being passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144B. For misreporting the income penalty u/s 270A is also initiated separately. You are hereby given an opportunity to show cause why the assessment should not be completed as per the draft

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm..of Incometax, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1344/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 270ASection 270A(10)Section 270A(7)

appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds : 1. “The Ld. AO erred in levying (Ld. CIT-A erred in confirming) penalty u/s 270A of Rs.3,27,993/-. 2. None of the clauses of subsection (2) of S. 270A are applicable to the present case & therefore ... fact that there is no under- reporting of income. Thus, the levy of penalty be quashed. 3. The computation mechanism of the penalty u/s 270A fails as there is neither intimation order passed [u/s 143(1)] nor there is assessment order passed u/s 143(3) & thus the levy of penalty

Baba Akhila Sai Jyothi Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.987/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Baba Akhila Sai Jyothi Vs. Dy. Cit Industries Private Ltd Circle 1 ( 1 ) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcb3413C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate A.V. Raghuram राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated, 6/8/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs.5,80,424/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Advocate A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 40A(7)

offered an explanation which is bonafide and the assessee has disclosed all the material facts to substantiate the explanation offered, then the penalty u/s 270A is not leviable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price ... diligence on the part of the tax professional, the assessee cannot be held guilty of under reporting/misreporting of income, inviting the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Rakesh Fatechand Jain, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit (National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2795/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Rakesh Fatechand Jain Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, National Shop No. 140, Kherwadi Market, Vs E-Assessment Centre, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. Delhi Pan: Afjpj 0418 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kunal D. LunawatFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Officer ['Ld. AO'] for alleged under-reporting. 2.1 The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 270A in respect of addition made under section 50C without appreciating specific discrepancies in the report of the DVO which were pointed ... well as appellant proceedings. 2 Rakesh Fatechand Jain A.Y. 2018-19 2.2 The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 270A rejecting the contention of the appellant that the sale price is the actual price of property and no penalty u/s 270A can be levied

Dayal Singh, Vill Fatehpur Po Burewala vs. ITO Ward-1, Panchkula

In the result, the ground no

ITA 519/CHANDI/2024[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 519/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Dayal Singh, The Ito, Vill Fatehpur Ward -1, Po Burewala Panchkula Distt.Amabla 134204 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acdps7697G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Y.R. Saini, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assess Ee In This Appeal H As Taken Foll Owing Groun Ds Of Appeal: 1 That In The F Acts & Circumstance Of The Case The Id. Addl/Jcit (A)-9 Mumbai Of Cit (A)( Nfac) Has Erred In Law By Placing Reliance On Judgement Of Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Maji Sinneman Vs Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Y.R. Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

delay in f iling the appeal . He came to know about the order u/s 143(3) dated 29/10/2019 when a notice of penalty u/s 270A dated 26/08/2021 was received by him by post on 02/09/2021 f rom the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme court

Milan (Industrial) Premises Co-Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 20(1), Mumbai

ITA 5409/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ketan DemaniFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar
Section 139(4)(c)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

2.The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act of Rs. 33,28,388/-. 3.The notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act is bad in law.” 3. These appeals are being disposed off through a common

Milan (Industrial) Premises Co-Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 20(1), Mumbai

ITA 5408/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ketan DemaniFor Respondent: Ms. Sujatha Iyangar
Section 139(4)(c)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

2.The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act of Rs. 33,28,388/-. 3.The notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act is bad in law.” 3. These appeals are being disposed off through a common