← 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

Sekhon Jagtar Singh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1104/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharankantha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)Section 274

assessee that he has not underreported the income in pursuance to the provisions of sec. 270A(6) of the Act. Therefore, the penalty u/s 270A of the Act cannot be levied. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. . Page

Coursera Inc., United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), International Taxation, Delhi

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 3646/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 9(1)(vii)

issued, applicable interest to be charged and credit of taxes, if any after verification from the ITD system are to be allowed. Penalty u/s 270A is being proposed to initiate as discussed in earlier paragraphs of the order. Detailed computation of tax payable and interest charged u/s 234A, 234B

Coursera Inc., United States of America vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), International Taxation

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 2416/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 9(1)(vii)

issued, applicable interest to be charged and credit of taxes, if any after verification from the ITD system are to be allowed. Penalty u/s 270A is being proposed to initiate as discussed in earlier paragraphs of the order. Detailed computation of tax payable and interest charged u/s 234A, 234B

Samuel Paul Dhinakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1177/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1176/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Evangeline Paul Dhinakaran Dcit बनाम/ #7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Adyar, Central Circle-3(1) Vs. Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajpd-2491-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1177/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Samuel Paul Dhinakaran Dcit बनाम/ #7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Adyar, Central Circle-3(1) Vs. Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atspd-8564-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)

underreporting or misreporting of income identified during the assessment proceedings. 3. The CIT(A) failed to note that the question of levy of penalty u/s 270A does not arise when no addition was made based on any incriminating material found during the search. 4. The CIT(A) erred in holding

Evangeline Paul Dhinakaran, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 1176/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1176/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Smt. Evangeline Paul Dhinakaran Dcit बनाम/ #7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Adyar, Central Circle-3(1) Vs. Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajpd-2491-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1177/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Samuel Paul Dhinakaran Dcit बनाम/ #7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Adyar, Central Circle-3(1) Vs. Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atspd-8564-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)

underreporting or misreporting of income identified during the assessment proceedings. 3. The CIT(A) failed to note that the question of levy of penalty u/s 270A does not arise when no addition was made based on any incriminating material found during the search. 4. The CIT(A) erred in holding

Prakash Madhav Kolhe, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, both appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 687/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.686 & 687/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Prakash Madhav Kolhe, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 3, Shri Shilpa At Radha Sona, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Iti Ambad Link Road, Kamatwada, Nashik-422010. Pan: Aclpk4828P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Abhilasha Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act For A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2018-19 Both Dated 27.02.2024 Emanating From Penalty Orders Under Section 270A Of The Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For A.Y.2017-18 Are As Under :

Section 249(2)Section 250Section 270A

assessee for A.Y.2017-18 are as under : ITA Nos.686 & 687/PUN/2024 Prakash Madhav Kolhe [A] “1. The learned CIT is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs.1,33,390/- on the ground that the assesse had misreporting his income by Rs. 1,50,918/- in consequence of misreporting without appreciating

Prakash Madhav Kolhe, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Nashik, Nashik

In the result, both appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 686/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.686 & 687/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Prakash Madhav Kolhe, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 3, Shri Shilpa At Radha Sona, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Iti Ambad Link Road, Kamatwada, Nashik-422010. Pan: Aclpk4828P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Abhilasha Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act For A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2018-19 Both Dated 27.02.2024 Emanating From Penalty Orders Under Section 270A Of The Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For A.Y.2017-18 Are As Under :

Section 249(2)Section 250Section 270A

assessee for A.Y.2017-18 are as under : ITA Nos.686 & 687/PUN/2024 Prakash Madhav Kolhe [A] “1. The learned CIT is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs.1,33,390/- on the ground that the assesse had misreporting his income by Rs. 1,50,918/- in consequence of misreporting without appreciating

Shubh Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2552/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ranjana Soni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 270A

commission earned on providing accommodation entry of Rs.1,00,00,000/- is added to the income of the assessee. The penalty u/s 270A for under reporting of income is also initiated separately.” 3. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO ex- parte since

Income Tax Office Ward -1 Sonepat, Sonepat, Haryana vs. Om Minirals, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. J. P. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(10)(c)Section 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(3)(ii)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

account of the above, the AO disallowed the amount of Rs.3,64,90,350/- u/s 43B of the Act and levied penalty u/s 270A of the Act for under reported income which was in consequence of misreporting thereof of the disallowances made u/s 43B of the Act. 6. Aggrieved

Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 898/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Shreem Electric Limited, V The Assistant Plot No.43 To 46, S Commissioner Of Income L.K.Akiwate Industrial Tax, Estate, Jaysingpur, Shirol, Central Circle, Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416144. Pan: Aaccs4893C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak -Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 31/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.01.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Penalty Under Section 270A Of Rs.3,01,124/-. Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur[A] 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That, Since The Addition Is Made On Adhoc Basis, No Penalty Can Be Levied. 3. The Penalty Levied May Please Be Delete. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. There Is A Delay Of Two Months Of Filing Appeal Before This Tribunal. Considering The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit, We Are Convinced With The Reasons For Delay & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay.

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)

disallowed the depreciation to the 20% on account of machinery purchases from M/s Raidance Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. Further, the AO also initiated penalty u/s 270A of the Act for underreporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income.” 6. Thus, in this case, in the assessment order

Regal Education Society, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Kolhapur

In the result, three appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 697/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.695, 696 & 697/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2020-21 Regal Education Society, The Income Tax 104, Swami Complex, V Officer(Exemptions), Bazarpeth, Chiplun, Ratnagiri, S Kolhapur. Maharashtra – 415605. Pan: Aabtr5097B Appellant Respondent Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), All Dated 04.03.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Act For A.Y.2018-19 & A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee In Ita No.695/Pun/2024 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Due To Delay In Filing Without Considering The Case On Merits.

Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 250Section 270A

NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO of denying exemption u/s 11 and consequent lew of penalty u/s 270A, not accepting the alternate contentions of the appellant in respect of: a. Its income being exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) b. Only net commercial income is taxable

Regal Education Society, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Kolhapur

In the result, three appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 696/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.695, 696 & 697/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2020-21 Regal Education Society, The Income Tax 104, Swami Complex, V Officer(Exemptions), Bazarpeth, Chiplun, Ratnagiri, S Kolhapur. Maharashtra – 415605. Pan: Aabtr5097B Appellant Respondent Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), All Dated 04.03.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Act For A.Y.2018-19 & A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee In Ita No.695/Pun/2024 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Due To Delay In Filing Without Considering The Case On Merits.

Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 250Section 270A

NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO of denying exemption u/s 11 and consequent lew of penalty u/s 270A, not accepting the alternate contentions of the appellant in respect of: a. Its income being exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) b. Only net commercial income is taxable

Regal Education Society, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Kolhapur

In the result, three appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 695/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.695, 696 & 697/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2020-21 Regal Education Society, The Income Tax 104, Swami Complex, V Officer(Exemptions), Bazarpeth, Chiplun, Ratnagiri, S Kolhapur. Maharashtra – 415605. Pan: Aabtr5097B Appellant Respondent Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), All Dated 04.03.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Act For A.Y.2018-19 & A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee In Ita No.695/Pun/2024 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Due To Delay In Filing Without Considering The Case On Merits.

Section 10Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 250Section 270A

NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO of denying exemption u/s 11 and consequent lew of penalty u/s 270A, not accepting the alternate contentions of the appellant in respect of: a. Its income being exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) b. Only net commercial income is taxable

DCIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Diamond Company Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 166/Mum/2024 is dismissed

ITA 166/MUM/2024[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (All.CIT) SR DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(8)

that the appellant has under-reported income inconsequence of misreporting of income does not arise. Thus, the AO has erred in levying the penalty u/s 270A of the Act treating that the appellant has under-reported income inconsequence of misreporting of income. Hence, the AO is directed to cancel ... order of the ld.CIT(A) is fully justified. We find no reason to interfere in the impugned appeal order related to deletion of penalty u/s 270A. Accordingly, the ground of the revenue is rejected. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 166/Mum/2024 is dismissed. Order pronounced

Anand Annamalai, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

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

ITA 166/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.166/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Anand Annamalai, The Income Tax Officer, Kilakkukadu Chettikulam, Ward-1(6). Naduvalur, Gangavalli Taluk, Salem Selam, Tamil Nadu-636102. [Pan: Afapa1954N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Kathir, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

dated 07.12.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi. :- 2 -: 2.0 The assesse is primarily contesting the order of the first appellate authority supra whereby penalty u/s 270A dated 27.09.2022 culminating into demand of Rs. 1,68,405/- levied by the AO is stands sustained. 3.0 As for factual matrix enumerated ... Rs.12,16,470/-. Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B was passed on 30.03.2022 determining total income at Rs.23,06,470/- . Through the said order penalty u/s 270A was initiated. The assesse did not seek any immunity from penalty from u/s 270AA(2). The AO issued show cause notices to the assesse

Sri. Gujjappa, N, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 648/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 274

peace of mind. Therefore, there was no under reporting of income as alleged by the revenue. Accordingly, it was prayed that no penalty u/s 270A of the Act is leviable in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities

The Coimbatore City Cooperative Bank Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Non-Corporate Circle -I

The appeal of the assesse stands dismissed

ITA 264/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.264/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 80P(2)(d)

challenged order u/s 250 dated 20.11.2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi. :- 2 -: 2.0 During the course of appellate proceedings the Ld.AR argued that no penalty u/s 270A was leviable since it was hit by the exemption by the prescribed in u/s 270A(6) on the premise that the assesse was under

Rajkumar Asnani, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 689/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) And

For Appellant: Shri Puneet Kumar Pareek-ProxyFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 270A

dismissed.'' #### RAJ KUMAR ASNANI VS ITO, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR - 2.4 The Bench further noticed that present appeal relates to imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act and it has brought to the notice of the Bench that quantum appeal is still pending before

Ravindra Bhagwan Potdar, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Nashik

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

ITA 647/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274

quantum order passed u/s 147 dated 31/01/2023 he has initiated penalty for the default of under reporting of income therefore levy of penalty u/s 270A(9) is not valid. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, The Learned Assessing Officer erred in levying ... however the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income. It was further found that in the assessment order only penalty u/s 270A for under reporting of income was initiated & no sub-section or clause was mentioned. Even the notice dated 31.01.2023 for imposition of penalty u/s

Asstt. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle Pune, P.M.T Building Swargate Pune vs. Kedari Redekar Shikshan Sanstha Gadhinglaj, Gadhinglaj

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 559/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 12ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 80G

furnish any explanation on the merits of the issue and also failed to put forth any reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. Accordingly, he imposed penalty of Rs.1,01,30,508/- @ 200% of the tax payable on the amount of Rs.1 ... replies during the penalty proceedings did not provide any explanation on the merits of the issue or reasonable cause for non-levy of penalty u/s. 270A. The AO concluded that the assessee indulged in under- reporting income due to misreporting by claiming wrong capital expenditure. The penalty under Section 270A