“levy of penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 2715,057 judgments

The decision most relied on for levy of penalty is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on levy of penalty

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court

2,590

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.

322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court

2,228

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Ashok Pai v. CIT

292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court

812

citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India

54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court

702

citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court

565

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya

216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court

511

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

CIT v. Manu Engg

122 ITR 306 · 1980 · High Court

505

citing judgments

When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa

83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court

502

citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

Judgments citing levy of penalty

Mustafa Alihusain Sunelwala, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 274Section 54F

/NFAC and also in the absence of any satisfactory explanation offered by the assessee, it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act. He, therefore, levied penalty of Rs.15,48,234/- being 200% of tax payable on underreported income u/s 270A of the Act vide ... appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming levy of penalty of Rs 1548234/- u/s 270A(9) on account of misreporting of income in respect of addition of capital gains without appreciating the facts and circumstances

Clover Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7922/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2012-13 Clover Developers Pvt. Ltd., Dcit-6(1)(1), Flat No. 12, Mumbai. 1St Floor, Plot No. 541/C, Vs. Ashok Building, Edenwalla Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. Pan : Aaacg1925B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K. Gopal A/W. Shri Akhilesh Deshmukh For Revenue : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 08-09-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has sustained the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2. During the course of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that assessment ... Tribunal and the matter has been decided in favour of the assessee and in view of the same, there is no basis for levy of penalty by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was accordingly submitted that the penalty so levied and confirmed by the Ld.CIT

Narrotam Morarjee Institute of Shipping, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)Ward 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5559/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Narrotam Morarjee Institute Of National Faceless Shipping, Mumbai Assessment Appeal Centre 76 – Jolly Maker, Chambers – 2, (Nfac) Office Of The Vs. Vivek Shah, Mumbai, Nariman Commissioner Of Income Point S.O.-400021 Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A) Delhi (Pan : Aaatn0042R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025- 26/1078465227(1) Dated 14.07.2025 Passed Against The Penalty Order U/S. 270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi ["The Cit (A)") U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["The Act For Short Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Passed

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 250Section 270A

computed the tax payable at Rs.6,66,130/- for which no working is given in the penalty order. With this amount, he thus levied a penalty applying the rate of 200 per cent, amounting to Rs.13,32,260. 5 Narottam Morarjee Institute of Shipping ... Shipping AY 2018-19 treat it as misreporting of income so as to apply the rate of 200 per cent for the levy of penalty. 7.2. We find that on the fact as stated above, treating it as a case of misreporting of income

Vicky Navani, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jabalpur, Ward ))

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

ITA 124/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

correct requirement of law (to upload the audit return in due time as the audit was completed on 17/10/2016) hence the levy of penalty require to be deleted in toto in the interest of natural justice and obliged.' Similar issue came up before Hon'ble Kerala HC in the case ... which the immunity granted under section 245H remained in force; and (iii) any period during which a proceeding under this Chapter for the levy of penalty is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded.]]- (Amend 68. Substituted by the Taxation Laws Act, 1970, w.e.f

Hari Krishna Mishra, Basti vs. The Income Tax Officer, Basti

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

ITA 828/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147Section 271ASection 69A

Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1081353520(1) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short] which is subject matter of the appeal pertain to levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee ... Since the quantum matter has been restored back for de novo order to the file of the AO, the issue relating to the levy of penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act involved in the present appeal is also restored to the file of the AO, with a direction

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Nutech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8693/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

issue. (A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12) Shri Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudhary vs. ITO 16. It is well settled that the condition precedent for levy of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) is only when the Assessing Officer, in the course of proceedings, is satisfied that an assessee has concealed ... offering the real income to tax. A clear subjective satisfaction of these essentials is a sine qua non for the Assessing Officer to levy a penalty. Penalty proceedings are penal in nature, as the intention of such provisions is to create an effective deterrent, which will restrain the assessee from

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Nutech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8692/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Sh. Ratnaram Kohlaram Chaudary (Prop. of M/S. Netech Metal), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 8691/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. AR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Pba Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4212/MUM/2025[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR a/w

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 18-03-2025, pertaining to Assessment Years (AYs.) 2003-04 & 2013-14, sustaining levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟). 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay ... clarified that in cases prior to 1.4.2016, if any adjustment is made in the income computed for the purpose of MAT, then the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, will depend on the nature of adjustment. 6. The above settled position is to be followed

Pba Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4211/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR a/w

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT, Delhi vs. Aster Tradelinks Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6254/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

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

Section 147Section 153(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

charge, i.e., whether the penalty was for 'concealment of income' or for 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income', thereby rendering the initiation and levy of penalty invalid and void in law. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted

DCIT, Circle 52(1), New Delhi vs. Bhupinder Singh Bhalla, New Delhi

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2964/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Respondent: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Adv. (Virtual) S/Shri

Section 142(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54B

grounds raised in Ground No 7 and 8 are herewith addressed. Hence, this ground stands allowed. Ground no 9 The issue of levy of penalty is premature and does not require adjudication. Ground No 10 Is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. Additional Ground The appellant

Mckinsey & Company India LLP, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-29(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1028/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

1028/Del/2021 McKinsey & Company India LLP The Appellant also submits that the appeal includes corporate tax-related grounds pertaining to the consequential levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Given the MAP resolution, these grounds have now become infructuous. We further wish to bring to the kind ... filed on 27.08.2021 as well as additional ground No. 16 filed on 17.04.2022. It is further stated that the grounds relating to consequential levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act have become infructuous. ITA No.- 1028/Del/2021 McKinsey & Company India

National Insurance Company Limited, New Town vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2806/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

case of misreporting of Income which could lead to the levying of any Penalty u/s 270A and thus he erred in confirming levying of Penalty of Rs.11,52,05,880. 3) That the appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify any Ground or Grounds of Appeal before ... being related to the excess Management expenses. In the Appeal filed against the Penalty, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the levy of Penalty in relation to the disallowance made for excess Management expenses, on the basis of his confirmation of the disallowance so made in the assessment. For this Penalty

National Insurance Company Limited, New Town vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2804/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

National Insurance Company Limited, New Town vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2803/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

Bommarabettu Madhu Sudhana Acharya, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 and Tps, Udupi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 937/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 54E

appreciated that the circumstances that prompted the Appellant to receive on sale of sites cash from buyers and ought to have refrained from levying the penalty 5. On the facts the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the income declared under the head capital gain and allowed the exemption ... accordingly, held that failure on the part of the assessee attracts penalty u/s 271D of the Act and accordingly levied the penalty of Rs.13,56,500/- being sum equal to the amount of specified sum so accepted. Bommarabettu Madhusudhana Acharya, Bengaluru Page 4 of 13 4. Aggrieved by the order

Lic Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6974/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhandari and Sri Shreyas Shah,(Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 153(5)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 5(2)

date of assessment order PLUS interest to be levied for further period of non- payment, is waived. Assessee is also granted immunity from levy of penalty. After raising of demand, if an assessee has not paid tax, then he has to only pay ‘disputed tax’ and interest levied and leviable

Lic Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6973/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhandari and Sri Shreyas Shah,(Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 153(5)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 5(2)

Lic Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, all the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6972/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri S.Bhandari and Sri Shreyas Shah,(Adv.) and Amicus CuriaeFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan,(Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)(a)Section 153(5)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)Section 5(2)