← 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

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Limited, Hong Kong vs. ACIT Circle Int Tax 2(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 380/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

3546/DEL/2023 & 1664/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23] Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Vs. ACIT 32. Ground 4 regarding penalty u/s 270A is premature and ground 5 regarding interest u/s 234B is consequential. ITA No. 3546/DEL/2023 [A.Y 2021-22] ITA No. 1664/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2022-23] 33. The facts

Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Ltd., (Formerly Known As Kyocera Mita Asia Limited), Hong Kong vs. ACIT, Circle International Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3546/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

3546/DEL/2023 & 1664/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23] Kyocera Document Solutions Asia Vs. ACIT 32. Ground 4 regarding penalty u/s 270A is premature and ground 5 regarding interest u/s 234B is consequential. ITA No. 3546/DEL/2023 [A.Y 2021-22] ITA No. 1664/DEL/2025 [A.Y 2022-23] 33. The facts

Meenaba Divyavirsinhji Alias Digvijaysinhji Jadeja, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1693/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2019-20 Meenaba Divyavirsinhji Alias Deputy Commissioner Of Digvijaysinhji Jadeja Income Tax, Circle-1, Diyanirman House, Bhavnagar - 364002 Chitranjan Chowk, Vs. Bhavnagar - 364001 [Pan – Aespj 0763 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mohit Balani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.01.2026 O R D E R

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 270ASection 271ASection 69

facts in charging interest u/ s.234A/B/C/D. 10. Learned AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in initiating penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 11. Learned AO has erred in law and on 271AAC of the Act. ENT on facts of the case in initiating penalty u/s

Unique Insurance Services, Punjab vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Ludhiana, Punjab

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1149/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)

Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19 to 2020-21 have identical facts and issues i.e., confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 270A. The facts leading to levy of penalty on the assessee are identical. First, I take up appeal for AY 2018-19 which arises ... while framing the assessment. However, since the assessee did not file regular return of income u/s 139(1), Ld. AO proposed penalty u/s 270A for under- reporting of income and show-caused the assessee. Though the assessee opposed levy of penalty on the ground that the return of income could

Unique Insurance Services, Ludhiana vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Ludhiana, Punjab

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1148/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)

Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19 to 2020-21 have identical facts and issues i.e., confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 270A. The facts leading to levy of penalty on the assessee are identical. First, I take up appeal for AY 2018-19 which arises ... while framing the assessment. However, since the assessee did not file regular return of income u/s 139(1), Ld. AO proposed penalty u/s 270A for under- reporting of income and show-caused the assessee. Though the assessee opposed levy of penalty on the ground that the return of income could

Unique Insurance Services, Ludhiana vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Ludhiana, Punjab

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1147/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)

Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19 to 2020-21 have identical facts and issues i.e., confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 270A. The facts leading to levy of penalty on the assessee are identical. First, I take up appeal for AY 2018-19 which arises ... while framing the assessment. However, since the assessee did not file regular return of income u/s 139(1), Ld. AO proposed penalty u/s 270A for under- reporting of income and show-caused the assessee. Though the assessee opposed levy of penalty on the ground that the return of income could

Income Tax Officer, Varanasi vs. Neonatal Health Academy, Varanasi

In the result, for statistical purposes, both appeals are partly allowed

ITA 132/VNS/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270

order to be passed by learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and matter regarding penalty u/s 270A of I. T. Act is also restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order

Income Tax Officer, Varanasi vs. Neonatal Health Academy, Varanasi

In the result, for statistical purposes, both appeals are partly allowed

ITA 131/VNS/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270

order to be passed by learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) is set aside and matter regarding penalty u/s 270A of I. T. Act is also restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo order

Sandip Ganpat Lokhande, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(2), Pune

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

ITA 2628/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2628/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sandip Ganpat Lokhande, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(2), Pune. A/P Annapur, Tal- Shirur, Shirur S.O., Pune- 412210. Pan : Akepl2437L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Manish Sinha Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appeal By Not Condoning The Delay Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 270A At Rs 3,59,726/- Towards Alleged Misreporting Of Income. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Substitute Any Ground Of Appeal At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha
Section 143(3)Section 270A

appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming levy of penalty u/s 270A at Rs 3,59,726/- towards alleged misreporting of income. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground ... individual and in his case regular assessment order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act was passed and subsequently vide order 04.08.2021 penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act of Rs.3,59,726/- was imposed. 4. Being aggrieved with the above penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Kalpesh Deepak Fuldale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(2), Pune

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

ITA 2627/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2627/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kalpesh Deepak Fuldale, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(2), Pune. A/P Pargaon (S.M.), Tal- Daund, Dist- Pune- 412203. Pan : Arhpp1574G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Manish Sinha Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Facts & On Law In Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 270A Under Reporting / Misreporting Of Income.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha
Section 143(3)Section 270A

appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The ld CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in confirming levy of penalty u/s 270A under reporting / misreporting of income. 2 2. The ld CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in failing to specify the limb ... show Cause Notice dated 26.12.2019 under which the Penalty u/s 270A is to be levied. 3. The ld CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in failing to specify the limb in the Penalty Order dated 11.1.2022 under which the Penalty u/s 270A is to be levied

Inu Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4070/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri(Hybrid Hearing) Inu Exports Private Limited Ito, 12(2)(2), Mumbai Room No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar Office No. 33, Shrinaman Plaza, Vs Behind Shoppers Stop Kandivali, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400067. Mumbai – 400020. [Pan: Aaaci 6806 M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)Section 270Section 270ASection 274

annulled. 3. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,19,85,920/- against the penalty u/s 270A. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” INU Exports Private Limited 2. Brief facts of the case

Shri Shyam Construction Company, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 910/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Atharv Mundra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 145(3)Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 40

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. 2. It was a common ground that the default for which penalty was levied in both the appeals was identical. Therefore ... u/s. 270 A of the Act for ‘underreporting of income’ pertaining to the same was also initiated. Subsequently penalty order was passed levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act on the total addition made to the income of the assessee of Rs.5,38,230/-, being 50% of the amount

Shri Shyam Construction Company, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 909/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Atharv Mundra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 145(3)Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 40

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act. 2. It was a common ground that the default for which penalty was levied in both the appeals was identical. Therefore ... u/s. 270 A of the Act for ‘underreporting of income’ pertaining to the same was also initiated. Subsequently penalty order was passed levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act on the total addition made to the income of the assessee of Rs.5,38,230/-, being 50% of the amount

Aradhya Ghosh, Kolkata vs. Deptuy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-67(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5210/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Shri Srinath L, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 270A

before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the quantum appeal against which the impugned penalty u/s 270A was levied has already been decided by the ITAT in favour of the assessee in ITA No.1788/Del/2022 vide order dated

Gopal Mittal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Gopal Mittal, Vs. Ito, 1041, 1St Floor, Jash Textile Market, Ward – 1(1)(1), Ring Road, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aempm3251M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)

submitted that the assessee had disclosed all material facts and explanation, which were covered u/s 270A(6) of the Act, therefore, no penalty u/s 270A should be levied under- reporting of income. The ld. AR relied on the decisions in cases of (i) Punam Kanwar Bhati vs. ITO, 165 taxmann.com ... outstanding demand of Rs.9,26,135/- vide challan dated 17.12.2019 (Page 20 of PB). Section 270AA of the Act provides immunity from penalty u/s 270A subject to fulfilment of the following conditions: (i) payment of tax and interest within the prescribed period and (ii) non-filing of appeal against

Nirjeet Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 52(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5151/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Nirjeet Singh Vs Ito Ward 52(1) 117, Palika Bazar New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi- 110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ablps0458C

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(c)Section 274

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) at NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the penalty u/s 270A of the Act imposed by the Assessment Unit of the National Faceless Assessment Centre. (b) The order being arbitrary, fallacious, and unwarranted must be quashed with directions ... ledger account as well as confirmation from the supplier was also filed before the Ld. AO. The assessee claimed immunity from penalty u/s 270A by filing requisite form u/s 270AA of the Act in respect of the impugned addition. However, the Ld. AO held that the immunity u/s 270AA cannot

Smt Suruchi Satish Sarmalkar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-32(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5942/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 154Section 250Section 270A

order dt. 29.11.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) / CIT(A).The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: I. Penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming Assessing Officer order levying penalty u/s 270A ... consideration and the stamp duty value of the property purchased without appreciating that there is no misreporting of any income, therefore levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act is not justified. 2 Smt Suruchi Satish Sarmalkar, Mumbai. 2. The Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming that

Parveen Tayal, Faridabad Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Faridabad Haryana

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2074 & 2075/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19) Praveen Tayal, Dcit, H. No.246/G, 1St Floor, Central Circle-2, Sector-10, Dlf, Faridabad. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Agrpt5617P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 03, Gurgoan [Cit(A) In Short] Dated 31.01.2025 For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act).

Section 153ASection 153DSection 270A

Income Tax (Appeals)- 03, Gurgoan [CIT(A) in short] dated 31.01.2025 for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. Heard the parties. On perusal of records, we find that the quantum appeals ... vide Parveen Tayal vs. DCIT order dated 15.10.2025. The present appeals before us have been filed by Assessee against the imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 3. Since, the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi has already quashed the assessment orders passed u/s 153A r.w.s

Parveen Tayal, Faridabad Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Faridabad Haryana

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2074/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalita Nos.2074 & 2075/Del/2025 (Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19) Praveen Tayal, Dcit, H. No.246/G, 1St Floor, Central Circle-2, Sector-10, Dlf, Faridabad. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Agrpt5617P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 03, Gurgoan [Cit(A) In Short] Dated 31.01.2025 For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act).

Section 153ASection 153DSection 270A

Income Tax (Appeals)- 03, Gurgoan [CIT(A) in short] dated 31.01.2025 for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. Heard the parties. On perusal of records, we find that the quantum appeals ... vide Parveen Tayal vs. DCIT order dated 15.10.2025. The present appeals before us have been filed by Assessee against the imposition of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. 3. Since, the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi has already quashed the assessment orders passed u/s 153A r.w.s

ACIT Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sip Infotech Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly it should be disallowed

ITA 5917/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavacit, Circle-3(2)(1), Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 37Section 37(1)

paper company only. Therefore the expense of Rs.3,01,988/- is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee for which penalty u/s 270A is initiated for misreporting of income. 4. Notional interest on the advance given to the director:- From the Balance sheet of the company ... worked out to be 29,93,220/- which is added to the total income of the assessee as income from other sources and penalty u/s 270A is initiated for under reporting of income. Furthermore, in this case as per the details submitted by the assesse company one property of book