← 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

Siddapura Taluka Agricultural Produces Co-Op Marketing Society Limited, Siddapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1002/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri M. Monish Sowkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 274Section 80P(2)(a)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The only grievance of the assessee is with regard to levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act at Rs.4,43,350/-. 3. Facts of the issue are that the ld. AO initiated penalty u/s 270A of the Act for having ... evasion of tax to the tune of Rs.87,101/-. The ld. AO after issuing the notice u/s 274 of the Act, levied penalty u/s 270A of the Act at 50% of the tax to be evaded worked out at Rs.43,550/-. On appeal, NFAC confirmed the same. Against this assessee

Sagar Subhash Wedhane, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

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

ITA 191/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.191/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sagar Subhash Wedhane, Vs. Ito, Nashik. 75, Midc, Bosch Limited, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aavpw1338A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.01.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,61,548/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Under-Reporting In Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: Smt. Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)

assessment year 2018-19. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT is not justified in levying penalty u/s 270A of Rs.1,61,548/- on the ground that the assesses has under-reporting in consequence of mis-reporting without appreciating that the said levy ... complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesses and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesses was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned CIT ought

Anjappan Maruthapandian, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 463/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.461/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.462/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.463/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anjappan Maruthapandian Dcit बनाम/ No.7/2, Jp Towers Central Circle-1(3), Nungambakkam High Road Chennai-34. Vs. Chennai-600 034 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajspm-1309-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkat Raman & Shri V. Padmanaban (Cas)- Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkat Raman & Shri V. PadmanabanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 69

accepted. We order so. The appeal stand allowed accordingly. Assessment Year 2018-19 5.1 The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of penalty u/s 270A for Rs.1.60 Lacs. In an assessment framed u/s 153A on 06-03- 2022, the returned income of Rs.39.67 Lacs as filed in response ... However, the assessee had admitted income of Rs.37.07 Lacs in regular return of income filed u/s 139. Accordingly, Ld. AO levied penalty u/s 270A for Rs.1.60 Lacs for under-reporting of income. The Ld. CIT(A) wrongly noted that the penalty was levied for Rs.2.59 Lacs. It was also held

Anjappan Maruthapandian, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 462/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.461/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.462/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.463/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anjappan Maruthapandian Dcit बनाम/ No.7/2, Jp Towers Central Circle-1(3), Nungambakkam High Road Chennai-34. Vs. Chennai-600 034 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajspm-1309-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkat Raman & Shri V. Padmanaban (Cas)- Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkat Raman & Shri V. PadmanabanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 69

accepted. We order so. The appeal stand allowed accordingly. Assessment Year 2018-19 5.1 The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of penalty u/s 270A for Rs.1.60 Lacs. In an assessment framed u/s 153A on 06-03- 2022, the returned income of Rs.39.67 Lacs as filed in response ... However, the assessee had admitted income of Rs.37.07 Lacs in regular return of income filed u/s 139. Accordingly, Ld. AO levied penalty u/s 270A for Rs.1.60 Lacs for under-reporting of income. The Ld. CIT(A) wrongly noted that the penalty was levied for Rs.2.59 Lacs. It was also held

Anjappan Maruthapandian, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 461/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.461/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.462/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.463/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anjappan Maruthapandian Dcit बनाम/ No.7/2, Jp Towers Central Circle-1(3), Nungambakkam High Road Chennai-34. Vs. Chennai-600 034 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajspm-1309-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkat Raman & Shri V. Padmanaban (Cas)- Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkat Raman & Shri V. PadmanabanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 69

accepted. We order so. The appeal stand allowed accordingly. Assessment Year 2018-19 5.1 The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of penalty u/s 270A for Rs.1.60 Lacs. In an assessment framed u/s 153A on 06-03- 2022, the returned income of Rs.39.67 Lacs as filed in response ... However, the assessee had admitted income of Rs.37.07 Lacs in regular return of income filed u/s 139. Accordingly, Ld. AO levied penalty u/s 270A for Rs.1.60 Lacs for under-reporting of income. The Ld. CIT(A) wrongly noted that the penalty was levied for Rs.2.59 Lacs. It was also held

Surana Mutha Bhansali, Pune vs. ACIT-Circle 5 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1442/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 270A(1)Section 270A(9)Section 43CSection 80I

produce any evidence on the claim of the same for the assessment year 2017-18. Hence, it is a fit case for initiating penalty u/s 270A(9) for misreporting of income. Accordingly, the penalty proceedings u/s 270A(1) r.w.s. 270A(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are initiated

Banur Brother, Patiala vs. ITO-Ward-1, Ambala

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

ITA 772/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 69A

this notice again remained uncomplied with. Vide this office show cause notice dated 03.12.2019 you were again required to show cause why penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may not be initiated in your case. Since you did not comply with the notices to avail the opportunity

Janayoga Chitfunds Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 991/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Tharun Kothari, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for department
Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 69A

ITA No.991/Bang/2024 Janayoga Chitfunds Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

Chenniappan Ramadurai, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1337/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1337/Chny/2023 & Ita Nos.1340/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 & Ay-2019-20 Shri Chenniappan Ramadurai, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.56, Nms Compound, Erode, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. Tamil Nadu-638001. [Pan: Aelpr2706M] & Ita Nos.1343/Chny/2023 For Ay 2019-20 Smt. Ramadurai Amutha, No.56, Nms Compound, Erode, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-638001. Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. [Pan: Afvpa4816L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

no.1 & 2 is general in nature and hence bereft of any adjudication. 5.0 Ground of appeal no.3 to 5 are regarding imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act vide order dated 16.03.2022. The AO noted that a Survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted upon the assesse engaged ... notices issued by the AO. Consequently from the material available on record the AO concluded that the assesse was liable for payment of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. The AO noted that the assesse had offered undisclosed income detected during the course of survey but failed to disclose

Ujala Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Nsp Pitampura Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 43(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1850/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. NFAC was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available ... assessment was accepted by the assessee by not preferring any further appeal before the ld. NFAC. 10. The ld. AO proceeded to levy penalty u/s 270A of the Act vide order dated 9.12.2021 in the sum of Rs 13,80,610/- being 200% of tax payable on under reported income

Ujala Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Netaji Subhash Place vs. ACIT Circle 40(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1849/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. NFAC was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available ... assessment was accepted by the assessee by not preferring any further appeal before the ld. NFAC. 10. The ld. AO proceeded to levy penalty u/s 270A of the Act vide order dated 9.12.2021 in the sum of Rs 13,80,610/- being 200% of tax payable on under reported income

New Skies Satellites B.V., Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2733/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year : 2021-22] New Skies Satellites B.V., Vs Dcit, C/O-Ernst & Young Llp, Golf Cirlce-2(2)(2), View Corporate Tower, Tower-B, International Taxation, Sector-42, Gurgaon, New Delhi. Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaccn1866C Appellant Respondent Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. & Appellant By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Respondent By S/Shri Vivek K. Upadhayay, Sr. Dr & Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2024 Order Per G.S. Pannu, Vp : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Dcit, Circle-2(2)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi Dated 28.08.2023. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 270ASection 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

Grounds No. 1 to 3 are allowed. 9. As regards Ground No. 4 is concerned, the same is against the initiation of penalty u/s 270A of the Act, hence, this Ground of Appeal is pre-mature at this stage, therefore, the same is dismissed. 10. In the result, appeal

Johnson & Johnson Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57 Income Tax Departmetnt, Mumbai

ITA 364/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 253

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Sachin Dattaram Kadam, Bhandup West vs. Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre

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

ITA 690/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawali T A. No. 690/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) Sachin Dattaram Kadam, Vs Ito,-National E- Assessment Centre, 1701, Prathmesh View, . Delhi-110001. Residency, Opp Ceat Ltd Bhandup (W), Mumbai – 400078 Pan/Gir No. Apppk4462E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 250

change in method of accounting is not supported by documents, therefore being disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Penalty u/s 270A also initiated for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. Finally the AO has assessed the total income

Tyro India, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 665/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2017-18 Tyro India Ito Ward 31(3)(2) Now 5, New Ambica Apartment, Transferred To 41(4)(4) Jawahar Nagar Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Goregaon (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400062. Bandra (East), Pan: Aacft6482D Mumbai- 400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. Cit), Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22 . 05 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 . 05 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Vide Its Order No. Itba/Nfac/ S/250/2023-24/1058988518(1) Dated 22/12/2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 1. The Following Grounds Of Appeal Have Been Raised:- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Enhancing Scope Of Scrutiny Wrongly Converting The Cass Based

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule (Addl. CIT), Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 270ASection 274

without any comparable instance. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in initiating penalty u/s 270A and also charging interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D. 4. In the facts of the case and in Law, the learned

Writer Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-8(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 40/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrasekhar & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chaurasia, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 270A

assessee and he took the view that the difference between the returned income and the assessed income would automatically give rise to penalty u/s 270A of the Act. Accordingly, he confirmed the penalty levied by the AO. 6. We heard the parties and perused the record. The Ld A.R submitted ... relevant details were furnished by the AO. 8. We noticed earlier that the Ld CIT(A) has taken the view that the penalty u/s 270A shall be levied, if there is difference between returned income and assessed income, i.e., he has expressed the view that the penalty u/s 270A

Sh. Dal Chand Sharma, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Alwar

ITA 101/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

cost of acquisition was also very less i.e. below taxable so he did not filed ITR. The assessee record a notice of penalty u/s 270A of the Act and assessment order by hand through verification unit Jaipur vide letter 27.07.2023, address on notice was of property which was already sold

DCIT, Central Circle-02, Delhi, Jhandewalan vs. Otsuka Chemical India Pvt. Ltd., Abhinash Mansion

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2501/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Anup Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 28Section 9

270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.34,10,12,520/-. The penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been levied by the Assessing Officer after observing that the assessee has filed wrong details with regard ... even before the conclusion of the assessment proceedings and the fact was duly appraised to the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 270A of the Act which has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Heard the arguments

Compagnie Ibm France, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 546/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "The Act") by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that

Compagnie Ibm France, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 545/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and SI.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that