← 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

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

ITA 5407/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

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 5406/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

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

Prathamesh Vivek Khot, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer National E Assessment Centre Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3091/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 156Section 270ASection 54F

held that wrong claim of exemption 3 Shri Prathamesh Vivek Khot u/s.54F is misreporting and it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 270A (9) of the Act. 6. Before the ld. CIT (A) assessee had stated as under:- “In this regard I would like to state that ... paid the necessary tax along with interest as per the notice of demand u/s 156 Key details for Immunity from Imposition of Penalty u/s 270A Sr. No. Particular Particular 1 Returned Income 29,66,890 2 Assessed Income as per order dated 48,05,332 07.04.2021 3 Date of Notice

Rama Chandra Jadhav, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(2), Pune

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

ITA 2076/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2076/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rama Chandar Jadhav, V The Income Tax Officer, A/P-Ahmadabad, Tal-Shirur, S Ward-13(2), Pune. Dist-Pune – 412218. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt.Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 22.08.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Id Cit(A) Erred In Facts & On Law In Levying The Penalty U/S 270A Under Reporting Misreporting Of Income. 2. The Id Cit(A) Erred In Facts & On Law In Confirming Penalty U/S 270A In Absence Of Specific Limb In The Show Cause Notice Dated 26.12.2019 Under Which The Penalty U/S 270A Is To Be Levied. 3. The Id Cit(A) Erred In Facts & On Law In Confirming Penalty U/S 270A In Absence Of Specific Limb In The Penalty Order Dated 19/01/2022 Under Which The Penalty U/S 270A Is To Be Levied. 4. The Id Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Failing To Consider That The Entire Penalty Proceedings Were Conducted & Concluded During The Covid -19 Pandemic Which Is In Contravention To The Principles Of Natural Justice. 5. The Assesse Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Substitute Any Of The Ground Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. The Ld.Ar Submitted That This Is An Appeal Against The Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act.

Section 250Section 270ASection 89(1)

Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The ID CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in levying the penalty u/s 270A under reporting misreporting of income. 2. The Id CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in confirming penalty u/s 270A in absence of specific ... limb in the show cause notice dated 26.12.2019 under which the Penalty u/s 270A is to be levied. 3. The Id CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in confirming penalty u/s 270A in absence of specific limb in the Penalty order dated 19/01/2022 under which the penalty u/s

Sushil Rajendra Kothari, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4734/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Revenue /For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 57

Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee raised the following ground of appeal:- 1. The learned NFAC CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 270A of the Act of Rs 1129012 and completely ignored the facts and merits of the case. 2. The learned NFAC CIT (A) erred ... payable on under-reported in consequence of misreported income (A-B) 200% of Tax payable on under-reported in consequence of misreported income Penalty u/s. 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961 Amount

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Swami Vivekanand Medical Mission, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3531/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Swami Vivekanand Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Medical Mission Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Peddar C/O Sanjivani Hospital, Vs. Road, Cumbala Hill, Datta Mandir Road, Mumbai - 400026 Virar(W) Mumbai – 401303 Pan: Aabts9185K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anil Sathe,Ca Revenue By : Shri Dr Kishore Dhule,Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per : Prabhash Shankar: The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, With Regard To The Assessment/Penalty Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) & 270A Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. We Take Up The Quantum Appeal First Relating To Assessment Order In Ita No.3531/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe,CAFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule,CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

deleted penalty as quantum appeal was already allowed in favour of the assessee by him as the underlying addition itself did not survive penalty u/s 270A could not stand at all.Since we have upheld the decision of the ld.CIT(A) in the preceding ground, penalty being inconsequential, no interference

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Swami Vivekanand Medical Mission, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3530/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Swami Vivekanand Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Medical Mission Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Peddar C/O Sanjivani Hospital, Vs. Road, Cumbala Hill, Datta Mandir Road, Mumbai - 400026 Virar(W) Mumbai – 401303 Pan: Aabts9185K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anil Sathe,Ca Revenue By : Shri Dr Kishore Dhule,Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per : Prabhash Shankar: The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, With Regard To The Assessment/Penalty Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) & 270A Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. We Take Up The Quantum Appeal First Relating To Assessment Order In Ita No.3531/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe,CAFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule,CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

deleted penalty as quantum appeal was already allowed in favour of the assessee by him as the underlying addition itself did not survive penalty u/s 270A could not stand at all.Since we have upheld the decision of the ld.CIT(A) in the preceding ground, penalty being inconsequential, no interference

Vision Diagnostic India Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 26(2), Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3067/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

reason that special rate of tax has been provided under the Act and in any case charging the interest and also initiation of penalty u/s 270A, without recording proper satisfaction in this regard is illegal and unjustified and also resulted in demand, being more than the amount of additions made ... pertinent to mention here that charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act and also initiation of penalty u/s 270A or consequential in nature and thus do not require any adjudication.” Vision Diagnostic India vs. ACIT, Cir.26(2), Delhi 5. The assessee is in appeal raising various grounds

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Incredible India Projects Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 604/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.604 & 605/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Acit Vs. Incredible India Projects Central Circle-2(4) Private Limited Hyderabad Secunderabad [Pan : Aabci9355A] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 19/09/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2024 आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate, But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Both Dated 30/08/2022, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, ARFor Respondent: : Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(9)(d)Section 271ASection 274

ambit of undisclosed income as per Explanation 3 of section 271AAB of the Act. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant submissions, levied penalty u/s 270A of the Act for the A.Y.2017-18 for under reporting of income which in consequence of mis-reporting thereof. Similarly, the Assessing Officer levied penalty ... assessee referring to application filed under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules, 1963 for both the assessment years submitted that, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 270A and 271AAB of the Act for the A.Y.2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively on the basis of vague show cause notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s

Hireright Llc, United States of America vs. Deputy Assisstant Comissioner of Income Tax International Tax Gurugram, Gurugram

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

ITA 1915/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Kunal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. C. Chandra Kanta, CIT-DR
Section 13Section 14Section 9(1)(vi)

this case. The ground no 1 and 2 with its sub-grounds are allowed. 10. The ground no 3 pertains to initiation of penalty u/s 270A. The same is premature and is accordingly dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1915/DEL/2024 is partly allowed

Jayasakthi Knit Wear, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 1758/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1758/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Jayasakthi Knit Wear, The Ito, 3/95, Thanneerpandal Colony, Ward-1(4), Cheyur Road, Tirupur. Karukkampalayam B.O. Avinashi, Tirupur-641 654. [Pan: Aaffj 4343 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 270ASection 270A(9)

under-reported income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof. 2. You are required to show cause as to why an order imposing penalty u/s 270A of the Income-tax Act 1961 should not be passed. 3. You are required to submit your reply online electronically in 'e-Proceeding' facility ... issued by the AO u/s.274 r.w.s.270A of the Act. In absence of any particular charge for which, the assessee is directed to pay penalty u/s 270A of the Act, entire penalty proceedings becomes invalid and liable to be quashed. 19. In this view of the matter and by following

Smita Virendra Lodha, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1980/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 270A

consequence of mis-reporting of income. 4. During the course of such penalty proceedings the assessee filed a detailed reply submitting that the penalty u/s 270A of the Act should not be levied. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee and levied the penalty of Rs.6 ... response to the notice issued by the AO u/s 148 of the Act also cannot rescue the appellant from levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. This is matter of fact that the appellant had substantial taxable income during the year 4 under reference still she did not file

Melakandy Puthalath Farook, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1890/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1890/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Melekandy Puthalath Farook Acit बनाम/ Faraz No.9 Sbi Colony, Corporate Circle-2(1) Vs. Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapf-2644-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274

घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 270A for Rs.54.10 Lacs for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been passed ... offered to tax. The Ld. AO computed LTCG of Rs.112.06 Lacs and framed the assessment. Consequently, in the assessment order, Ld. AO initiated penalty u/s 270A for misreporting of income. 4. During penalty proceedings, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A

Kirit Parasmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3774/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

taken by the assessee in ITA No. 3772/Mum/2024 are reproduced as under: 1. The Learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 270A of 18,74,030/- for under reporting of income. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 270A

Kirit Parasmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3772/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

taken by the assessee in ITA No. 3772/Mum/2024 are reproduced as under: 1. The Learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 270A of 18,74,030/- for under reporting of income. 2. The Learned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 270A

Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1544/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 56(2)(x)

submitted to be as abdication of his statutory duty cast on him as per law. 5. On the facts of the assessee no penalty u/s 270A at 50% of tax of Rs.12,57,082/- on account of addition of Rs.43,10,000/- on purchase of property based on difference

Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai Makwana, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1543/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1543/Ahd/2024 & 1544/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mahamadbhai Rahemanbhai The Ito बनाम/ Makwana Ward-3(1)(2) V/S. Prop. Of Master Platers Ahmedabad – 380 015 Udhyognagar Tavdipura, Shahibaug Ahmedabad – 380 004 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aktpm 2009 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 56(2)(x)

submitted to be as abdication of his statutory duty cast on him as per law. 5. On the facts of the assessee no penalty u/s 270A at 50% of tax of Rs.12,57,082/- on account of addition of Rs.43,10,000/- on purchase of property based on difference

Target Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1613/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 92C

ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 15. The issue raised by the assessee regarding imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act is premature to decide at this state and, therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 16. In the result, the appeal filed

Mahalakshmi Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 615/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer is directed to allow consequential relief. Hence, ground no. 5 is partly allowed. 4.4 Ground No. 6 relates to initiation of penalty u/s 270A r.w.s. 274 of the Act. This ground is regarding initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A which is premature at this stage because no appeal

Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(1), Hyderabad vs. Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer is directed to allow consequential relief. Hence, ground no. 5 is partly allowed. 4.4 Ground No. 6 relates to initiation of penalty u/s 270A r.w.s. 274 of the Act. This ground is regarding initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A which is premature at this stage because no appeal