Which cases are most cited on Section 270A(8)?

CIT v. M. M.Khambatbala (198 ITR 144) — 67 citing judgments; Rajesh Kumar v. CIT (27 SCC 181) — 57 citing judgments; CIT v. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company (213 ITR 843) — 43 citing judgments; Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bengaluru (280 Taxmann 334) — 42 citing judgments; Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC (142 Taxmann.com 38) — 32 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 270A(8)?

BharatTax indexes 58 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 270A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 270A(8) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 270A(8) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. M. M.Khambatbala (198 ITR 144) is the decision most relied on for Section 270A(8), cited in 67 judgments. The provisions of section 263 can be invoked by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax even where the issue in the assessment order is debatable, provided the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

The decision most relied on for Section 270A(8) is CIT v. M. M.Khambatbala (198 ITR 144), cited in 67 of the 58 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 270A(8)

CIT v. M. M.Khambatbala

198 ITR 144 · 1992 · High Court

citing judgments

The provisions of section 263 can be invoked by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax even where the issue in the assessment order is debatable, provided the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Rajesh Kumar v. CIT

27 SCC 181 · 2007 · Reported

citing judgments

Principles of natural justice must be implicitly followed by statutory authorities when their actions lead to civil or adverse consequences, even if not explicitly provided in the statute. This applies to mandatory provisions like Section 271(1)(c) that impose significant penalties.

CIT v. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company

213 ITR 843 · 1995 · High Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner can invoke revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 even when the assessee has disclosed all facts, if the Assessing Officer failed to examine those details in accordance with the correct provisions of law. Full disclosure does not provide immunity from revision if the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the AO's inadequate inquiry.

Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bengaluru

280 Taxmann 334 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC

142 Taxmann.com 38 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors.

443 ITR 186 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be imposed if the Assessing Officer fails to specify which clause under Section 270A(9) applies and fails to show cause to the assessee accordingly. Strict adherence to the conditions of Section 270A is mandatory for its applicability.

Indian Textile v. CIT

157 ITR 112 · High Court

citing judgments

An order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid even if only one of the items considered is prejudicial to the revenue. This section can be invoked even when full facts are disclosed but the assessing officer has not examined them correctly, or when the issue is debatable.

Dr. Motibhai D. Patel v. Commissioner of Income-tax

127 ITR 671 · 1981 · High Court

citing judgments

CIT v. ECS Ltd.

336 ITR 162 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

CIT v. Manilal Somnath

106 ITR 917 · 1977 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 270A(8)

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BRIVAN CONSULTANTS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3672/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwlbrivan Consultants Private Vs. Acit, Central Circle-31 Limited, B 34, Lgf, Ncc Dts (S) Panchsheel Enclave, South Jhandwala Ext., Delhi, Delhi- 110017 New Delhi – 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcb3684F Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) Vs. Brivan Consultants Private Room No. 384, Cr Limited, B 34, Lgf, Building, Ip Estate Panchsheel Enclave, South Delhi – 110002 Delhi, Delhi- 110017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcb3684F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Pulkit Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

BRIVAN CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3616/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Pulkit Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1882/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarashok Kumar Gupta, Vs. Dcit, Cc-8, New Delhi C/O Anil Jain, Dd & Co., 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, Kg Marg, New Delhi – 1 [Pan: Aaapg2240G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Agtpg1303M

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)

RAJKAMAL AGNIHOTRI,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Rajkamal Agnihotri Vs Ito Shivalik View, Lane No.3, Ward-1(1)(3) Jogiala, Ring Road, Dehradun Nathanpur, Dehradun Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -248005 Pan-Amqpa2608G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri K. K. Juneja, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2021-22/10408670 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 14.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2022, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,89,260/-. The Return Was Updated On 11.09.2023 U/S 139(8A) Of The Act, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 73,92,200/- & Paid The Taxes Alongwith The Interest Thereon. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Ground That No Capital Gain Was Reported In Itr Though The Assessee Has Sold The Property Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3)/144B Of The Act Dated 14.03.2024 Wherein Income Declared In The Updated Return Filed U/S 139(8A) Of The Act Was Accepted However, Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A(1) R.W.S. 270A(8) & 270A(9)(A) Of The Act Were Initiated. The Ao Thereafter, Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings & Imposed The Penalty In Terms Of The Order Dated 14.03.2024 Imposing The Penalty Of Inr 31,58,542/- U/S 270A Of The Act.

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 19Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 9

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

ITA 6680/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 270ASection 80G

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

ITA 6498/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 270ASection 80G

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

UDAY UTTAMRAO NEVASE,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER / ASSESSMENT UNIT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2606/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2606/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Uday Uttamrao Nevase, V The Assessing Officer / Saugandh Niwas, Hind Colony S Assessment Unit, Pune. Lane No.1 A, Bhekrai Nagar, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Pan: Akqpn1150Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Rohan Gupta Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 04.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 270A, Dated 17.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Ground 1 Section 270Aa Immunity Cit A Erred In Law By Confirming The Penalty Of Rs 629382 Under Section 270A Without Considering And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

KSHITIJ INTERIORS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 7401/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd. Dcit- Circle 210, Mogra Village, Old 2(1)(1), Nagardas Road, Mumbai- Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 400069 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aabck8174D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vishwas Mehendale Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)(a)

D.D.155ATHOORP.U.PUBLICSERVANTSCO-OPTHRIFT&CREDITSOCIETY LIMITED,SITHAYANKOTTAI vs. WARD 1, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL

In the result the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

ITA 2801/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Raviassessment Years: 2020-21 D.D.155 Athoor P.U.Public Servants Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ward-1, Limited, Dindigul No.8-1-19 Market Road, Sithavankottai Aathoor-Tk, Dindigul Tamil Nadu-624 708. [Pan: Aacad2029F]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(8)Section 80(2)(d)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

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

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

ITA 4204/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 274

UMRI POOPH PRATAPPUR TOOLLWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI

ITA 4747/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaumri Pooph Pratappur Vs. Acit, Circle 25(1) Tollway Private Limited Cr Building, Ito 907, New Delhi House, Ip Estate 27 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi – 110002 Connaught Place, Delhi – 110001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcu3925G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 274

NIRJEET SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 52(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5151/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Nirjeet Singh Vs Ito Ward 52(1) 117, Palika Bazar New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi- 110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ablps0458C

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(c)Section 274