BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

19 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 270A(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai104Delhi55Chennai48Bangalore45Jaipur41Ahmedabad21Indore20Pune19Rajkot16Patna12Agra11Hyderabad10Surat8Raipur7Amritsar7Nagpur6Lucknow6Visakhapatnam4Cuttack3Kolkata3Jodhpur2Allahabad2SC2Guwahati2Chandigarh2Cochin2Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 270A34Section 14825Section 271(1)(c)21Penalty16Section 14713Section 133A13Section 143(2)11Addition to Income10Section 271A9

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee‖. 12 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 7. Since, in the instant case, the assessee has made a bonafide claim which was approved by various High Courts in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. JCIT reported in [2020] 117 taxman.com 96 (Bombay) and Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals

Section 143(3)8
Survey u/s 133A8
Disallowance4

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Naik (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(6)

2) (b) and 270A(3) (1) (b) (A), there is under reporting of income consequent to misreporting of income to the extent of Rs.24,70,490/-in hands of appellant. 7.9 Further exclusion provided under section 270A(6)(a) is not applicable in view of 270A(8) as far as cases of misreporting of income like present case is concerned

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

ITA 1700/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 69A

b) to (g) of section 270A(2) of the Act. He submitted that the only possible clause is section 270A(2)(a) which applies where the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. He submitted that in the instant case the intimation u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 NANDED, NANDED vs. SATYAWAN ARJUNRAO SHINDE, OSMANABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2109/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1, Nanded. Vs. Satyawan Arjunrao Shinde, Nagar Accident Hospital, Gore Complex, Samta Nagar, Osmanabad- 413501. Pan : Baeps8869J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri B. P. Jaju Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Facts That The Assessee Has Suppressed Professional Receipts Not Shown In His Itr, Ld. Cit(A)-12, Pune Vide Letter Dtd.02/01/2023 Directed That Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A Of The Act May Be Initiated By The Ao At The Time Of Giving Effect To The Appeal Order Dtd.28/11/2022. Accordingly Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings As Per Clause (E) Of Sub-Section 9 Of Section 270A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri B. P. JajuFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 133ASection 2Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274Section 9

b) CIT Vs Shadiram Balmukund (84 ITR 183 Allahabad) In this case it is held that there must be satisfaction of respective officer. Penalty order is to be passed on the basis of the order passed by that authority i.e. A.O., or CIT(A). The action of CIT(A) is unjustified and against the natural justice.. 3.5 Having gone

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1939/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

b) where the total income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order is a loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under- reported income as if it were the total income; (c) in any other case determined in accordance with the formula- (X-Y) where

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

ITA 1940/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(3)(i)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)

b) where the total income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order is a loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under- reported income as if it were the total income; (c) in any other case determined in accordance with the formula- (X-Y) where

SANTOSH ASHOKRAO BARHANPURKAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2132/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) was applicable only upto assessment year 2016-17 and was replaced by a new section i.e. 270A of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer under similar facts imposed penalty u/s 270A of the IT Act for assessment year 2017-18. As the facts of the case have already been discussed in preceding paragraphs, we proceed to decide

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, AURANGABAD.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 976/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: MS.ASHTA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 281A

271(1)(c) of the Act, which had various Limbs, whereas Section 271AAB(1A) do not have any such. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) erred. Ld.DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court in PCIT Vs. Sandeep Chandak [2018] 405 ITR 648 (All) dated 27.11.2017 which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.04.2018. Ld.DR

MCM DEVELOPERS,AURANGABAD vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 362/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 154Section 269SSection 270ASection 271DSection 40A(3)

270A of Income Tax Act are hereby initiated for under-reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof. Further, as the assessee failed to comply the provision of section 269SS of the I.T.Act, 1961 by receiving of cash of Rs. 2,50,14,000/-, hence a reference is being made to Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range

SMITA VIRENDRA LODHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 1980/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 270A

271(1)(c). 6.7. In view of the facts of the case and the above-mentioned judicial decision, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant had underreported his income by filing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the impugned penalty order u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act for under-reporting of income in consequence to mis- reporting

YOGESH SHIVAJI SHINDE ,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Yogesh Shivaji Shinde, Vs. Ito, National Faceless H. No.377, Mhb Colony, Assessment Centre, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Delhi. Pan : Aekps3129Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Pagare (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs. 56,350/- On The Ground That The Assessee Had Under Reported & Mis Reported His Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Pagare (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)

B. Budruk Date of hearing : 28.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated. [Rs.2,06,68,835/-]” 6. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj reported in 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta). So far as the arguments made

SHRI PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1582/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri B.C. Malakar and Yuvraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1582 & 1038/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), 1, A/P Koregaon Bhima, Pune Nagar Pune Vs. Road, Tal Shirur, Pune – 411007 PAN: BFQPS4176B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1581 & 1577/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Shri

SHRI PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1038/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: S/Shri B.C. Malakar and Yuvraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1582 & 1038/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), 1, A/P Koregaon Bhima, Pune Nagar Pune Vs. Road, Tal Shirur, Pune – 411007 PAN: BFQPS4176B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1581 & 1577/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Shri

SMT ANJALI PRAPHULL SHIVALE,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1583/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: S/Shri B.C. Malakar and Yuvraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1582 & 1038/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), 1, A/P Koregaon Bhima, Pune Nagar Pune Vs. Road, Tal Shirur, Pune – 411007 PAN: BFQPS4176B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1581 & 1577/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Shri

SHRI PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1577/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: S/Shri B.C. Malakar and Yuvraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1582 & 1038/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), 1, A/P Koregaon Bhima, Pune Nagar Pune Vs. Road, Tal Shirur, Pune – 411007 PAN: BFQPS4176B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1581 & 1577/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Shri

SHRI PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1581/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri B.C. Malakar and Yuvraj ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1582 & 1038/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale ACIT, Central Circle 2(3), 1, A/P Koregaon Bhima, Pune Nagar Pune Vs. Road, Tal Shirur, Pune – 411007 PAN: BFQPS4176B (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1581 & 1577/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Shri

BANSAL LAND DEVELOPERS,PANVEL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PANVEL

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

ITA 2424/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe
Section 143(2)Section 43C

u/s 43CA is not sustainable. 5.5 Whereas, the appellant has not submitted necessary documentary evidences as per the sub section (4) of the Act that, the amount of consideration or a part thereof has been received by the appellant from the said buyers of the flat by any made other than cash on or before the date of agreement

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 692/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(11)Section 144(7)Section 144BSection 144C(6)(C)

penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s 270A of the Act.” 6 M/s.Persistent Systems Limited [A] Brief facts of the case : 2. The Assessee is a Public Limited Company which is listed on Bombay Stock exchange and National Stock Exchange. It is engaged in the business of Software development, and related services. It operates from various locations in India and also