LORDS INN HOTELS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHERI WEST vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(1), NARIMAN POINT

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

disallowed were claimed as expenditure due to an inadvertent mistake and there is no mis-reporting of income. Thus, the penalty must be deleted.” Additional Grounds “The Ld. AO erred in law in imposing the penalty u/s 270A of the Income tax Act, 1961 without specifying the specific clause of section 270A(9

HI-TECH ENGINEERS,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI,

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

9,11,140 2. Rushabh Corporation 10,82,928 3. Rushabh Trading Co. 11,12,818 4. V. H. Enterprises 12,45,495 5. Mahavir Enterprises 2,86,600 6. Vimalanath Associates 12,34,457 7. Vimalnath Corporation 12,20,035 Total 70,93,473 The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act for misreporting

HI-TECH ENGINEERS,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), BANDRA MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

9,11,140 2. Rushabh Corporation 10,82,928 3. Rushabh Trading Co. 11,12,818 4. V. H. Enterprises 12,45,495 5. Mahavir Enterprises 2,86,600 6. Vimalanath Associates 12,34,457 7. Vimalnath Corporation 12,20,035 Total 70,93,473 The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act for misreporting

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

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

270A of the Act, it is evident that the penalty was levied for under-reported income which is in consequence of misreporting as the assessee failed to disallow the STT paid and offered the short-term capital gains to tax @15% instead of @30% being the short-term capital gains arrived on sale of liquid bonds. As per the assessee

SALTWATER STUDIO LLP,MUM vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.13/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम / Saltwater Studio Llp Nfac, Delhi 103, Corporate Corner, F Block, Northe Block, Vs. Sunder Nagar, Near Dalmia New Delhi-110001 College, Malad (West) Mumbai-400 064 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Ackfs1653D (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

9) of section 270A of the Act which is against the misreporting of income as referred in sub-section (8) of section 270A of the Act. The AO has made the addition on account of addition made on these issues as under: - Particulars Addition amount 1 Interest paid on late payment of service tax 3,27,026 Interest on Income

MESSE FRANKFURT TRADE FAIRS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

disallowed. 21. The learned CIT(A), in affirming penalty, has proceeded primarily on the premise that once the addition has been confirmed and the claim was inadmissible in law, penalty under section 270A follows. However, such reasoning does not sufficiently examine whether the factual ingredients of section 270A(9

MESSE FRANKFURT TRADE FAIRS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

disallowed. 21. The learned CIT(A), in affirming penalty, has proceeded primarily on the premise that once the addition has been confirmed and the claim was inadmissible in law, penalty under section 270A follows. However, such reasoning does not sufficiently examine whether the factual ingredients of section 270A(9

SMT. URMILA DHELIA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

disallowance or rejection of the claim or stand of the Appellant based on reasonable interpretation of the law is not sufficient to attract penalty u/s.270A; ii) there is no misrepresentation or suppression of the facts of the case; even otherwise it could be case of under-reporting of income for which the Appellant was eligible for grant of immunity from

SUSHIL RAJENDRA KOTHARI ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19(3), , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

disallowance, and the AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A. The assessee appealed the penalty confirmation by the CIT(A).", "held": "The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 270A was unsustainable. The primary reasons were the AO's failure to specify the exact limb of Section 270A(9

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

9,40,590 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 7,76,720 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,91,572 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 5,89,107 2020 – 21 11,58,20,929 6,95,649 18. With respect to the addition under section 68 or under section 69C of the learned CIT [A] by this consolidated

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

9,40,590 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 7,76,720 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,91,572 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 5,89,107 2020 – 21 11,58,20,929 6,95,649 18. With respect to the addition under section 68 or under section 69C of the learned CIT [A] by this consolidated

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

9,40,590 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 7,76,720 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,91,572 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 5,89,107 2020 – 21 11,58,20,929 6,95,649 18. With respect to the addition under section 68 or under section 69C of the learned CIT [A] by this consolidated

DCIT 3(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

9,40,590 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 7,76,720 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,91,572 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 5,89,107 2020 – 21 11,58,20,929 6,95,649 18. With respect to the addition under section 68 or under section 69C of the learned CIT [A] by this consolidated

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

9,40,590 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 7,76,720 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,91,572 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 5,89,107 2020 – 21 11,58,20,929 6,95,649 18. With respect to the addition under section 68 or under section 69C of the learned CIT [A] by this consolidated

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

9,40,590 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 7,76,720 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,91,572 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 5,89,107 2020 – 21 11,58,20,929 6,95,649 18. With respect to the addition under section 68 or under section 69C of the learned CIT [A] by this consolidated

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELCON INFRAPROJECTS LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

9,40,590 2017 – 18 7,30,88,524 7,76,720 2018 – 19 8,85,94,455 5,91,572 2019 – 20 12,52,40,878 5,89,107 2020 – 21 11,58,20,929 6,95,649 18. With respect to the addition under section 68 or under section 69C of the learned CIT [A] by this consolidated

COCOCART VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

9)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in not considering the fact that, due to an error on the part of the Appellant company, the deduction under Section 80IAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was wrongly claimed, when the Appellant company having opted for taxation under Section 115BAA of the Income

MACROTECH DEVELOPRS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowance under section 14 A of the income tax act of ₹ 54,199,690/– . The brief of the fact shows that during the year the assessee has earned exempt income of ₹ ITA Nos. 2266 & 2239/Mum/2022 Macrotech Developers Ltd; A.Ys. 17-18 & 18-19 8,303,761/–. Assessee disallowed the same sum under section 14 A of the act. The learned