← 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

Mark Engineers (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5757/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2018-19 Mark Engineers (India) Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ci/1302, Hyde Park, Plot 8-10, Vs. Circle-14(1)(1), Sector 35/G, Kharghar, Aayakar Bhavan, Navi Mumbai-410210. M.K. Road, Pan : Aaacm4258R Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri B. Shankar For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 18-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Sustaining The Levy Of Penalty U/S.270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri B. ShankarFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40

270A of the Act, holding that the assessee has under reported its income to the tune of Rs. 3,12,48,876/- and penalty u/s. 270A of the Act @50% of tax on the under reported income was levied amounting to Rs. 46,87,331/-. 3. The assessee thereafter carried ... claim during the appellate proceedings and merely giving a statement without corroborative evidences/documents is not sufficient to explain the non-levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act and the order of the AO, levying penalty was accordingly confirmed. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before

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

ITA 605/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.605/Hyd/2022

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 270Section 271ASection 274

1 ITA.No.605/Hyd./2022 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad [THROUGH

Biliya Seva Sahkari Mandli Limited, Morbi, Rajkot vs. ITO Ward 1, Morbi

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

ITA 742/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 742/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Biliya Seva Sahkari Mandli Vs. Income Tax Office, Aayakar Limited Vibhag, J.K. Chamber, National At. Biliya, Tal. Morbi, Gujarat, Highway-8-A, At- Lalpar, Morvi 363641 (Gujarat) Morbi 363642 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabab3498H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 234FSection 253(5)Section 270ASection 80P(2)(d)

disallowed deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of Rs. 737219. 2. The Ld. AO has erred on facts & in law in levying the penalty u/s 270A of the 1.T. Act. 3. The Ld. AO has erred on facts & in law in levying the penalty u/s 234F

Ocean International, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 8651/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 147Section 270A

Interest and Penalty Proceedings Invalid: The learned CIT(A) failed to address that interest u/ss 234A/B/C (Rs. 1,87,364) and initiated penalty u/s 270A are consequential to invalid addition and should be quashed. 7 General Ground: The appellant craves leave to urge additional grounds and prays for costs

Ocean International, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 8650/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 147Section 270A

Interest and Penalty Proceedings Invalid: The learned CIT(A) failed to address that interest u/ss 234A/B/C (Rs. 1,87,364) and initiated penalty u/s 270A are consequential to invalid addition and should be quashed. 7 General Ground: The appellant craves leave to urge additional grounds and prays for costs

Ocean International, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 8649/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 147Section 270A

Interest and Penalty Proceedings Invalid: The learned CIT(A) failed to address that interest u/ss 234A/B/C (Rs. 1,87,364) and initiated penalty u/s 270A are consequential to invalid addition and should be quashed. 7 General Ground: The appellant craves leave to urge additional grounds and prays for costs

Ocean International, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 8648/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 147Section 270A

Interest and Penalty Proceedings Invalid: The learned CIT(A) failed to address that interest u/ss 234A/B/C (Rs. 1,87,364) and initiated penalty u/s 270A are consequential to invalid addition and should be quashed. 7 General Ground: The appellant craves leave to urge additional grounds and prays for costs

Ocean International, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 8647/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 147Section 270A

Interest and Penalty Proceedings Invalid: The learned CIT(A) failed to address that interest u/ss 234A/B/C (Rs. 1,87,364) and initiated penalty u/s 270A are consequential to invalid addition and should be quashed. 7 General Ground: The appellant craves leave to urge additional grounds and prays for costs

JCIT(OSD), Delhi vs. Icra Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2890/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad

Section 147Section 270A

Interest and Penalty Proceedings Invalid: The learned CIT(A) failed to address that interest u/ss 234A/B/C (Rs. 1,87,364) and initiated penalty u/s 270A are consequential to invalid addition and should be quashed. 7 General Ground: The appellant craves leave to urge additional grounds and prays for costs

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Elixir Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Noida

ITA 2275/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

documentary evidence. Hence, the expense of Rs.3.42,47,147/- debited by the assessee is disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Penalty u/s 270A is initiated separately. 5. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted

Mr. Harivijay Pralhad Joshi, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(3), Pune, Swargate

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2297/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2297/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr.Harivijay Prahlad Joshi, V The Income Tax 3 & 4, Megh Terrace 55 S Officer, Rambaug, Colony, Behind Ward-3(3), Pune. Chaitanya Health Club, Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Pan: Aappj9257M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar – (Virtual) On Rotation Duty Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 14.11.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)

circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground, Ld. NaFAC has erred in initiating penalty u/s 270A of the Act and hence, the same may please be quashed. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, vary, or withdraw

Surinder Kumar Malhotra, Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

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

ITA 6370/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sh. Sombir Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 234ASection 250Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. NFAC has erred in law as much as in fact in not cancelling the initiation of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 7. That appellant craves to leave, alter, amend or modify the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing

Gajullanka Primary Agriculture Co Op Society, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri C Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

violating the principles of natural justice. 4. Without prejudice to ground no 2-4 the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in levying penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act in as much as there was no underreporting of income since the claim of the assessee is a legal ... ought to have known that the subject quantum amount on which penalty was levied u/s 271AAC (1) has already been subjected to penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act, therefore, considering the provisions of sub section (2) of section 271AAC, the subject penalty is liable to be quashed. 6. Without

Gajullanka Primary Agriculture Co Op Society, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 497/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri C Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

violating the principles of natural justice. 4. Without prejudice to ground no 2-4 the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in levying penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act in as much as there was no underreporting of income since the claim of the assessee is a legal ... ought to have known that the subject quantum amount on which penalty was levied u/s 271AAC (1) has already been subjected to penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act, therefore, considering the provisions of sub section (2) of section 271AAC, the subject penalty is liable to be quashed. 6. Without

Gajullanka Primary Agriculture Co Op Society, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 496/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri C Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

violating the principles of natural justice. 4. Without prejudice to ground no 2-4 the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in levying penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act in as much as there was no underreporting of income since the claim of the assessee is a legal ... ought to have known that the subject quantum amount on which penalty was levied u/s 271AAC (1) has already been subjected to penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act, therefore, considering the provisions of sub section (2) of section 271AAC, the subject penalty is liable to be quashed. 6. Without

Gajullanka Primary Agriculture Co Op Society, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 495/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.495 To 498/Viz./2025 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Gajullanka Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture Co-Op Ward-1, Tenali. Society,Avulavaripalem, Vs. Pin – 522 201. Kolluru Mandal, Guntur State Of Andhra District – 522 324. Pradesh Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri C Subrahmanyam, Ca [Hybrid Mode] राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri C Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

violating the principles of natural justice. 4. Without prejudice to ground no 2-4 the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in levying penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act in as much as there was no underreporting of income since the claim of the assessee is a legal ... ought to have known that the subject quantum amount on which penalty was levied u/s 271AAC (1) has already been subjected to penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act, therefore, considering the provisions of sub section (2) of section 271AAC, the subject penalty is liable to be quashed. 6. Without

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

convenience, are not inclined to reproduce here. 17. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are interconnected and pertain to levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 18 18. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1839/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

convenience, are not inclined to reproduce here. 17. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are interconnected and pertain to levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 18 18. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

convenience, are not inclined to reproduce here. 17. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are interconnected and pertain to levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 18 18. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged

Raghuram Enterprises, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

convenience, are not inclined to reproduce here. 17. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are interconnected and pertain to levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 18 18. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged