← All Phrases

“immunity under section 270AA”

PenaltySection 270AASection 270AA68 judgments

The decision most relied on for immunity under section 270AA is PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (432 ITR 84), cited in 185 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on immunity under section 270AA

PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
432 ITR 84 · 2021 · High Court
185
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's failure to specify the exact limb (i.e., concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice issued under Section 274 for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) vitiates the entire penalty proceedings.

Company Limited 432 ITR 84 (Del); 4. Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) Pte. Ltd. v. ACIT
145 Taxmann.com 665 · 2022 · High Court
13
citing judgments

Immunity from penalty under Section 270AA may be granted if the assessment order is silent on how the ingredients of Section 270A(9) are satisfied, and the penalty notice fails to specify whether the penalty is for 'under-reporting' or 'misreporting' of income.

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 immunity under section 270AA

Urmila Rajendra Mundra, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ajmer

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 577/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(1)

respondent No. 1 under section 156 of the Income-tax Act is also set aside. The respondent No. 1 is directed to grant immunity under section 270AA of the Income-tax Act to the petitioner-company. 31. No order as to cost. Respectfully following the above decisions which are binding

M/S. Darwyn & Vale Associates, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1081/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1081/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.Sudarshan, C.A GHFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 270ASection 274

Form-68. The Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal without appreciating the assessee’s submissions. Since the assessee was eligible for immunity under section 270AA and had a valid application pending before the A.O, the penalty order passed without considering the said application is not justified. We therefore

Ishit Kamleshbhai Sheth, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 753/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 270A(6)(a)

payment of tax and compliance with assessment order was complete within time, and therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of immunity under section 270AA. It was submitted that the filing of Form No. 68 is procedural in nature and cannot override the assessee’s substantive right under ... matter of record that the assessee paid the entire demand raised in the assessment order within the prescribed period. Though Form 68 for immunity under section 270AA was filed with delay, the substantive compliance namely, full ITA No.753/Ahd/2025 7 payment of taxes, no filing of appeal against the assessment order

Bangalore Housing Dev and Inv, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2492/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep C, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)

March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270AA (4) of the Act is set aside and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner.” 16. Respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we are setting

Lokesh Sachdeva, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

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

ITA 5740/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in his order has observed as under;

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

file the formal application for the same. The grounds for appeal include procedural objections to the penalty imposition and a request to invoke immunity under Section 270AA, despite no application being filed for such relief. 6.2 The appellant was given multiple opportunities to present submissions during the appellate proceedings. However ... evident that the appellant has not substantiated their claims of procedural unfairness or demonstrated any conditions that would qualify them for immunity under Section 270AA without a formal application. Section 270A penalizes misreporting and underreporting, with the intent being to deter the concealment of income. Given that the addition

Atri Papers, Private Limited., Haridwar vs. ITO, Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Atri Papers Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, 7A, Sandesh Nagar, Vs. Knp-C, Haridwar, Kankhal, Haridwar, Uttarakhand. Uttarakhand. Pan No.Aafcp1500J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270AA (4) of the Act is set aside and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner." 13. We are also supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi in the case

Soregam Sa, Belgium vs. ACIT International Taxation Tax Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1919/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Respondents. He relies on the impugned order dated 09th March, 2022 to contend that the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of immunity under Section 270AA of the Act. 6. Having perused the impugned order dated 09th March, 2022, this Court is of the view that the Respondents’ action ... March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270AA (4) of the Act is set aside and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner.” 11. We also observed that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manish Manohardas

Soregam Sa, Belgium vs. ACIT International Taxationtax Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1918/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1918, 1919, 1920, 1921 & 1923/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 To 2017-18 बनाम Shri Vinod Jindal, Dcit, H.No.1203A, Tower C-3, Vs. Central Circle-2, Srs Pearl Heights, Faridabad. Sector-87, Faridabad. Pan No.Aenpj1202Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250Section 270ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Respondents. He relies on the impugned order dated 09th March, 2022 to contend that the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of immunity under Section 270AA of the Act. 6. Having perused the impugned order dated 09th March, 2022, this Court is of the view that the Respondents’ action ... March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270AA (4) of the Act is set aside and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner.” 11. We also observed that the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manish Manohardas

Kawarilal, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2832/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 132Section 153CSection 270A

March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270AA (4) of the Act is set aside and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner.” 7. This Court is of the opinion that the only addition in the assessment order framed ... dated 28th March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270A of the Act is quashed and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner. 18. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court

Kawarilal, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cricle-1(2) Chennai, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2831/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 132Section 153CSection 270A

March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270AA (4) of the Act is set aside and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner.” 7. This Court is of the opinion that the only addition in the assessment order framed ... dated 28th March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270A of the Act is quashed and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner. 18. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court

Prakashchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2024 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of V. 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate %&थ$कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri R. Clement Ramesh : Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 :

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 270A

Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner.” Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner.” 7. This Court is of the opinion that the only ... directed to grant immunity under quashed and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under quashed and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner. A of the Act to the Petitioner. (AY 2017-18) ::11 :: 18. At this stage

Silver Oak Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT-6, Pune

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

ITA 2589/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Miss Aarti ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

which limb of section 270A was attracted, impugned penalty order was to be quashed and revenue was to be directed to grant immunity under section 270AA. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the prevailing position of law, I find that this

Jayasakthi Knit Wear, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Tiruppur

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

ITA 1758/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1758/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Jayasakthi Knit Wear, The Ito, 3/95, Thanneerpandal Colony, Ward-1(4), Cheyur Road, Tirupur. Karukkampalayam B.O. Avinashi, Tirupur-641 654. [Pan: Aaffj 4343 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 270ASection 270A(9)

March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270AA (4) of the Act is set aside and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner.” 7. This Court is of the opinion that the only addition in the assessment order framed ... dated 28th March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270A of the Act is quashed and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner. 18. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court

Melakandy Puthalath Farook, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1890/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1890/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Melekandy Puthalath Farook Acit बनाम/ Faraz No.9 Sbi Colony, Corporate Circle-2(1) Vs. Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapf-2644-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274

March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270AA (4) of the Act is set aside and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner.” 7. This Court is of the opinion that the only addition in the assessment order framed ... dated 28th March, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 270A of the Act is quashed and Respondent No.1 is directed to grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner. 18. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court

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

ITA No.1054/Bang/2024 IIFL Samasta Finance Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED

ACIT Circle-16(1), Delhi vs. Mahashian Di Hatti Private Limited, Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1484/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhasstt. Yr: 2017-18

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 44A

which limb of section 270A was attracted, impugned 7 penalty order was to be quashed and revenue was to be directed to grant immunity under section 270AA. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the prevailing position of law, I find that this

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)

order u/s 270AA (4) was to be passed within one month. The AO has accepted the fact that the assessee has applied for immunity under section 270AA and filed FORM-68. In a situation where order is not passed within one month, it has to be presumed that immunity

Chiguruvada Dileep Kumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 143/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 80CSection 80E

under Section 270AA (4) of the Act is set aside and Respondent No.1 is directed to Page 23 ITA Nos. 832/Bang/2023 & 143/Bang/2024 grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner.” 12.7 We are conscious of the fact that there can be cases where underreporting of income

Chiguruvada Dileepkumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 832/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 80CSection 80E

under Section 270AA (4) of the Act is set aside and Respondent No.1 is directed to Page 23 ITA Nos. 832/Bang/2023 & 143/Bang/2024 grant immunity under Section 270AA of the Act to the Petitioner.” 12.7 We are conscious of the fact that there can be cases where underreporting of income

Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 789/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 43(1)

claim of expense sub-clauses (a) and (c) of section 270A(9) were not attracted and, thus, assessee was to be granted immunity under section 270AA. In G R Infraprojects Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 158 taxmann.com 80 (Raj.) , hon’ble Court, inter alia observed that neither in the assessment ... within the period specified in such notice of demand; and (ii) no appeal has been preferred against the order besides the application for immunity under section 270AA was filed within the prescribed date. Further the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty not within the time prescribed under section 270AA