Which cases are most cited on Section 270A(9)(a)?

CIT v. M. M.Khambatbala (198 ITR 144) — 67 citing judgments; CIT v. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company (213 ITR 843) — 43 citing judgments; Indian Textile v. CIT (157 ITR 112) — 25 citing judgments; IBS Software (P.) Ltd. v. UOI (158 Taxmann.com 209) — 5 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 270A(9)(a)?

BharatTax indexes 25 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 270A(9)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 270A(9)(a) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 270A(9)(a) of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. M. M.Khambatbala (198 ITR 144) is the decision most relied on for Section 270A(9)(a), 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(9)(a) is CIT v. M. M.Khambatbala (198 ITR 144), cited in 67 of the 25 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 270A(9)(a)

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.

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.

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.

IBS Software (P.) Ltd. v. UOI

158 Taxmann.com 209 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 270A(9)(a)

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), MUMBAI

ITA 6498/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

SHIV RATAN EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARIDWAR vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 9

BECHTEL LIMITED,LONDON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX 1(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1816/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

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

MANOJ KUMAR GANGADHARAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO (IT AND TP) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 671/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

MANPOWERGROUP SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, DELHI , JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3585/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80JSection 92CSection 92D

CAPACITE INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) MUMBAI , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 6309/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 115JSection 132Section 153ASection 23(1)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(VA)Section 9

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 6/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 5/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 4/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 3/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

CREATIVE ASHTECH POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarcreative Ashtech Power V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Projects Private Limited, 7Th बनाम Income Tax, Circle– Floor, Raheja Point 1, Opp. 14(1)(2), Room No. 455, Vakola Market Nehru Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Santacruz (East), Mumbai– Marg, Mumbai – 400020, 400055, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcd1054F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(e)

RAMESHBHAI PRAJAPATI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamblerameshbhai Prajapati, Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Plot No. 242/2, Sector 1 C, Income-Tax, Gandhinagar-382001 Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar [Pan :Ackpp 9936 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 210Section 234ASection 250Section 270A(1)

AMMAN SPINTEX,ERODE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, ERODE

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

ITA 2079/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2079 & 2080/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Amman Spintex, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.155, Mill Road, Vs. Income Tax, Gobichettipalayam, Circle-1, Erode – 638 476. Erode. [Pan: Aazfa 7154J]

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 273BSection 80I