“Section 270(9)”

Section References (mined)Section 270Section 270(9)12 judgments

MUSTAFA ALIHUSAIN SUNELWALA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14(1), PUNE, 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

alleged misreporting has been covered. While passing the impugned penalty order u/s 270A, the Ld. AO failed to adhere to the requirements of section 270(9) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) rejecting the contentions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal by observing as under : “Decision- I have

TNCP LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result, the quantum\nNo

ITA 2603/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

such the\nlevy of penalty in such circumstances would not fall within the provisions of “mis-\nreporting of income within the ambit of Section 270(9) of the Act.\n24. Per contra, the Ld.DR for the Revenue contended that the Assessee has\nnot demonstrated that the subject asset are work

TNCD LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2602/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, Ito, 126, Kg House, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)

such the levy of penalty in such circumstances would not fall within the provisions of “mis- reporting of income within the ambit of Section 270(9) of the Act. 24. Per contra, the Ld.DR for the Revenue contended that the Assessee has not demonstrated that the subject asset are work

JAYANTIBHAI JIVABHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. WARD NO. 1(1),, BHARUCH

In the result, the penalty imposed under Section 270A of the Act is directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee succeeds

ITA 962/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. DR

Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

passed the order levying penalty at the rate of 200% without even specifically bringing out which of the instances as specified in section 270(9) of the Act were triggered, which further corroborated the fact that the AO had passed the impugned penalty order in an arbitrary and whimsical manner

ARUN NARAYAN CHAVAN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 6053/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Arun Narayan Chavan Dcit Circle D-75, Nandadeep Chsl 42(2)(1) Deonar Municipal Colony Vs. Kautilya Bhavan Govandi West Bkc, Bandra-E Mumbai-400 043. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aabpc0126C Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Shri K. Gopal & Ms

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 80C

taxmann.com749 (Mum-Trib) where the Ld. AO failed to establish how appellant’s case fell within the instances mentioned in the ambit of section 270(9) of the I.T.Act. 6. Per contra, Ld. DR has argued that the penalty order of Ld. AO and section

AAWAGAMAN MERCANTILE LLP ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3235/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailaawagaman Mercantile Llp, 204, Anand Estate, Arthur Road 189, Mumbai, Jacob Circle S.O. Mumbai - 400011 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Abbfa0328F V/S Ito, Ward – 1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata ……………. Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata. Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR

Section 111ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270Section 270A

Assessing Officer is required to establish that there is misreporting and that such misreporting falls within the cases of misreporting specified in Section 270(9)(a) to 270(9)(g) of the Act. Therefore, we hold that while passing the penalty order under Section 270A(1) read with Section 270A

PRANAV VIKAS INDIA PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1218/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath, Advocate , R.KFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Dwivedi, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI VIMAL

ANNAI VELANKANNI EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL SOCIETY,CUDDALORE vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1278/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1278/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Stay Application No.25/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1278/Chny/2024) (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Annai Velankanni Educational & Dcit (Exemptions) बनाम/ Social Society Chennai-34. Angucherry Palayam, Panruti Vs. Cuddalore-607 106. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabta-9910-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 15-03-2024 In The Matter Of Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] Of Rs.41.40 Lacs U/S 270A Of The Act Allegedly For Under-Reporting Of Income Vide Order Dated 26-

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 270(9)Section 270A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी

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

that in the assessment order, penalty has been initiated for underreporting of income in consequence of misreporting, however the section mentioned there is section 270(9) instead of section 270(8). The Ld.AR submitted that u/s. 270AA, sub-clause (8) deals with a situation where there arises 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

ORANGE CITY CREDIT CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 019/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Orange City Credit Co-Op. Society Ltd. Anand Plaza-2, Hudkeshwar Road, Raja Peth Bus Stop, Nagpur-440034. Pan: Aaaao2933P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Nagpur. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1047262637(1) Dt. 14/11/2022 Of The National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Confirmed The Order Levying Penalty Passed U/S 270A Of The Act By The National Faceless Assessment Centre [‘Neac’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 246A(1)(aa)Section 250Section 270ASection 274(1)

circumstance has deleted the penalty for AO’s failure to identify & communicate the specific clause of violation from clause (a) to (f) of section 270(9) of the Act. The similar decision can also be traced in ‘Saltwater Studio LLP Vs NFAC’[ITA No. 13/MUM/2023] ‘Satish Pawar

AMAR NATH,GURUGRAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), GURGAON

ITA 74/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 133ASection 143Section 156Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(9)Section 69A

under reported income was in the nature of misreporting. 8. The Bench is of considered view that as Ld. AO has specifically invoked Section 270(9)(a) of the Act then by virtue of sub section (3) of Section 270AA of the Act, as reproduced above