← 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

ITO, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Nirmal Developers, Mulund West

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4117/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Paresh DeshpandeFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the penalty knowing the fact that the penalty u/s 270A of the Act was imposed and levied on non-business expenditure disallowance. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... initiated for misreporting of the income, even though both the returned income and assessed income were nil. The AO proceeded to impose the penalty u/s 270A vide order dated 15.02.2022 after holding that the assessee had under reported his income in consequence of misreporting of income for the year under

ITO, Bkc vs. Nirmal Developers, Mulund West

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4115/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Paresh DeshpandeFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the penalty knowing the fact that the penalty u/s 270A of the Act was imposed and levied on non-business expenditure disallowance. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... initiated for misreporting of the income, even though both the returned income and assessed income were nil. The AO proceeded to impose the penalty u/s 270A vide order dated 15.02.2022 after holding that the assessee had under reported his income in consequence of misreporting of income for the year under

Al-Jadeed Social Welfare Association, at Post Hangarga vs. Income Tax Officer, Nanded

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

ITA 1480/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील स / Ita No.1480/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Al-Jadeed Social Welfare Income Tax Officer, Association Exemption Ward, Nanded At Post Hangarga Nal, Vs Tal Tuljapur, Osmanabad Pan No. Aabta3186G Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 270A

perused the records. At the out set the Ld.AR through written submission brought to our notice that the present appeal is against Penalty u/s 270A of the Act for AY 2018-19, however, the assessee’s appeal against the quantum addition has been set aside by Hon’ble ITAT

Manish Manohardas Asrani, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4134/MUM/2023[2019-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2024AY 2019-2000

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2019-2000

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/w Mr. Shashi Behkal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 250

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 ... been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the same reasoning. The question is whether the AO's action to levy penalty u/s 270A(9) of the Act is sustainable in the given facts of the case. In order to examine that let us have a look at relevant provisions

Iifl Samasta Finance Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1054/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 40Section 43

issued penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act on 16.9.2022 asking the assessee to show cause as to why penalty u/s 270A of the Act should not be levied for under reporting in respect of late payment of Employees's share of PF contribution and mis-reporting ... Asst. year 2020-21 as detailed given below for ease of reference and convenience- Under reporting Addition made on which penalty u/s 270A attracts Rs. 16,61,049/- Tax thereon 4,98,315/- Add: Cess 4% 19,933/- Total tax on addition 5,18,248/- Penalty U/s. 270A

NRI-Buildtech (India) Private Limited, Bhiwadi vs. PCIT Jaipur-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 724/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 724/Jpr/2024 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Nri-Buildtech (India) Private Limited Cuke The Pcit Vs. Main Road Chopanki, Near Power Jaipur-1, Jaipur. House, Vill- Bilahedi, Bhilwadi, Alwar. Lfkk;Hys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaecn3080A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@Assesseeby : None Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By : Shri Ajay Malik (Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@Date Of Pronouncement: 24/09/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 69C

liability at the rate of 60% plus surcharge and cess. 5.6. Thus, penalty u/s 271AAC(1) needs to be initiated instead of penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as initiated by the AO. 5 NRI-Buildtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. 6. As discussed above, the AO failed

Adivasi Unnati Seva Mandal, Rajur District Ahmednagar vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 948/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)(d)

reporting. e. In this case suppression of facts are there. 3 10. Therefore, this is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 270A of Income Tax Act 1961 for the mis reporting of income. Penalty of a sum equal to the rate of 200% of the tax payable ... view of the above discussion and considering the facts and circumstances of case material available on record, I therefore, impose a penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act on mis reporting of income and a penalty equal to 200% of Rs. 13,82,833/- i.e. Rs.27

M/S Ufv India Global Education (Society), Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 516/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 516/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S Ufv India Global Vs. The Dcit Exemption, Circle-1, Education, बनाम Chandigarh Ggd Sanatan Dharma College, Ector 32-C, Chandigarh (U.T.) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcu7691M अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 8

whereas the said assessment order was passed by the then AO on 03.12.2018. 4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeal)-NFAC while confirming the penalty u/s 270A in para 6.1.2 of his order has failed to appreciate that the assessee was engaged in carrying out the education activity ... reproduced a letter filed before him surrendering the claim u/s 11 during the course of assessment proceedings and only reason for initiation of penalty u/s 270A(9) were initiated as per para 4.3 of the order of Assessing Officer that the claim of exemption u/s 11 was surrendered only after

The Karimnagar District Co Operative Central Bank Limited, Karimnagar vs. ITO., Ward-2, Karimnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.701/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Karimnagar District Cooperative Vs. Income Tax Officer Central Bank Limited Ward-2 Karimnagar Karimnagar [Pan :Aabat0905H] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, DR
Section 270A

deposits the amount of tax within one month and could not file appeal against the assessment order would get immunity from the penalty u/s 270A. The assessee has relied on the judgement of Punam Kumar Bhati Vs ITO reported in [2024] 165 Taxmann.com 286 (Jodhpur-Trib), wherein, under similar facts

Sujeet Gupta, Bareilly vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Bareilly New

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.208/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sujeet Gupta, Shop No. S-55, M/S Paris Fashions, Awas Vikas Market, Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly, Up-243122 Pan: Aifpg6341K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Krishna Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 3

upheld the order of penalty & rejection to grant 3.5 immunity drawing out the conclusion as the incidence of default liable for penalty u/s 270A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee came in present appeal on as many of twelve grounds which ... those provisions adversely affecting the concerned person. We are of the view that all other grounds of appeal alleging the imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act as relied upon by the assessee are ITAT-Lucknow Page 5 of 6 Sujeet Gupta Vs ITO Ward-2(2) ITA No.208/LKW/2024

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Alwar vs. Man Mohan Krishna, Alwar

18. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed

ITA 503/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Natani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh , (Addl.CIT)
Section 250Section 270ASection 40

Assessing Officer, while levying penalty, clearly recorded that the assessee had under-reported income, and as such, he rendered himself liable for penalty u/s 270A of the Act. In support of his contention, ld. DR has referred to sub-section (9) of Section 270A of the Act which explains ... also referred to clause (b) sub-section(6) of Section 270A of the Act. Analysis & Findings 8. Admittedly, the assessment order imposing penalty u/s 270A of the Act came to be passed on 29.01.2022 subsequent to the assessment order of even date, relating to the same assessment year

Mohammad Iqbal, U.P vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Gaziabad

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

ITA 253/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mohammad Iqbal, Vs Ito, Rag & Associates, Chartered Ward-1(4), Accountants, 209, Jagdamba Ghaziabad. Tower, 13, Preet Vihar Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Abzpi5476Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vipin Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri Siddharth B.S.Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69Section 69ASection 80T

before passing the order Your lordship is therefore required to take into consideration the above matter and delete the above penalty u/s 270A. GROUND No. 2: That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Id CIT(A) had erred in sustaining the addition

Istore Direct Trading LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT 27(1), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 3450/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanistore Direct Trading Llp Vs. Dcit 27(1), Mumbai B3, B4, B5, Floor-B, Plot 405/406, It-Office, Vashi Railway 7C, Kamanwala Chambers, Bhagoji Station Building, Navi Keer Marg, Mahim, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400703. 400016. Pan: Aaffi3193R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40

learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in levying a penalty u/s 270A of the Income tax Act. 7. The appellant craves a right to add, to delete or to modify any of the main grounds of appeal mentioned hereinabove. 4. We have

Mansoor Basha Court, Adoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adoni

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

ITA 746/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.746/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mansoor Basha Court Vs. Income Tax Officer Adoni Ward 1 Pan:Amwpc4315J Adoni (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Shashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 02/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270A

penalty proceedings for the addition of Rs.2,51,900/- was initiated u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 270A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. On appeal, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of want of prosecution

M/S. Susila Educational Trust, Villupuram vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1, Chennai

Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of exemption u/s

ITA 1095/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

Income-tax Act 1961 for the AY 2018-19. I am also satisfied that this is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 because assessee has under reported income within the meaning of Section 270A(2)(a) of Income

Dr. Priya Narula, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward Int. Tax 2(2)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2324/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vikeram Kakar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. SabihaRizvi, Sr. Dr
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 274Section 68

sustained and is accordingly dismissed. 18. Grounds no. 7 regarding interest u/s 234B and 234D and ground no. 8 regarding initiation of penalty u/s 270A are consequential in nature and needs no separate adjudication. 13 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 2324/DEL/2024 ispartially allowed

Gujarat Safety Council, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 902/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 901, 902 & 1037/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Gujarat Safety Council Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 4Th Floor, Midway Height, Ward Exemption, Vs. Kirti Mandir, Kalaghoda, Vadodara Station Road, Vadodara, Gujarat, 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg0943L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. While Two Of The Appeals Are Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.08.2023 & 27/09/2023 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively, The Third Appeal Is Against The Order Of Addl./Jcit (A)-1, Coimbatore For The A.Y. 2017-18. The Issue Involved In All Three Appeals Are

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 234ASection 270A

applicability in current year. 4. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D is unjustified. 5. Initiation of penalty u/s 270A is unjustified.” 4. Shri S. N. Soparkar, ld. Sr. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a trust and the objects of the trust

Gujarat Safety Council, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 901/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 901, 902 & 1037/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Gujarat Safety Council Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 4Th Floor, Midway Height, Ward Exemption, Vs. Kirti Mandir, Kalaghoda, Vadodara Station Road, Vadodara, Gujarat, 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg0943L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. While Two Of The Appeals Are Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.08.2023 & 27/09/2023 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively, The Third Appeal Is Against The Order Of Addl./Jcit (A)-1, Coimbatore For The A.Y. 2017-18. The Issue Involved In All Three Appeals Are

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 234ASection 270A

applicability in current year. 4. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D is unjustified. 5. Initiation of penalty u/s 270A is unjustified.” 4. Shri S. N. Soparkar, ld. Sr. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a trust and the objects of the trust

Gujarat Safety Council, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 1037/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 901, 902 & 1037/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Gujarat Safety Council Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 4Th Floor, Midway Height, Ward Exemption, Vs. Kirti Mandir, Kalaghoda, Vadodara Station Road, Vadodara, Gujarat, 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg0943L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. While Two Of The Appeals Are Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.08.2023 & 27/09/2023 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively, The Third Appeal Is Against The Order Of Addl./Jcit (A)-1, Coimbatore For The A.Y. 2017-18. The Issue Involved In All Three Appeals Are

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 234ASection 270A

applicability in current year. 4. Charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D is unjustified. 5. Initiation of penalty u/s 270A is unjustified.” 4. Shri S. N. Soparkar, ld. Sr. Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a trust and the objects of the trust

Callus Biotech Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolhapur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1009/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1009/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Callus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. R/S 735, A/P Kandgaon, Radha Nagari Rd., Tal: Karveer, Kolhapur-416001. Pan: Aadcc5440J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S National E-Asstt Centre, New Delhi. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/08//2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062466111(1) Dt. 12/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act By The National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 270A

granted the opportunity of hearing by mode of Video Conferencing. Initiation of Penal 9. The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 270A of the Act. The appellant craves to add, alter, delete all, or any of the grounds of appeal on or before hearing. 3. Heard the rival submission