Section 270A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.439

Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 439 (Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 439 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 270A is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 of the 4,156 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 270A

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court
672
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT
291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court
565
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd.
213 CTR 268 · 2007 · Supreme Court
422
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to provident fund and ESI are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) if deposited by the assessee before the due date for filing the income tax return.

CIT v. Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd.
171 Taxmann 156 · 2008 · High Court
384
citing judgments

The assessment order must clearly specify the reason for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and explicitly state whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Failure to identify the specific limb under which penalty is initiated renders the penalty unsustainable.

DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co.
292 ITR 416 · 2007 · Supreme Court
360
citing judgments

A Permanent Establishment (PE) signifies a foreign enterprise's virtual projection into another country, with a fixed place PE existing where an MNE's business is wholly or partly carried on. A dependent agent PE requires the agent to act as such and/or have the authority to conclude contracts for the foreign enterprise under DTAA provisions.

CIT v. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd.
327 ITR 510 · 2010 · High Court
330
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable for legally unsustainable claims if the assessee provides a substantiated, bona fide explanation without concealing facts or giving incorrect information. However, penalty is attracted if a claim is baseless, legally incorrect, and the explanation lacks bona fides.

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

Judgments on Section 270A

Convonix Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4061/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyconvonix Systems Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited, 15Th Floor, Urmi Of Income Tax, Circle Estate, 95, Ganpatrao 15(1)(2), 4Th Floor, Kadam Marg, Delisle Road Aayakar Bhavan, S.O. Mumbai, Maharishi Karve Road, Maharashtra – 400013 Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccc5795P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pratik Shah Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Tax ("Ld. Ao") Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Assessing The Income Of The Appellant At Inr 18,07,08,220/-Instead Of Returned Income Of Inr 17,15,15,710/- & The Demand Raised Thereon On The Appellant Is Invalid & Bad In Law, The Appellant Prays That The Addition Made By The Ld. Ao Be Deleted 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ['1D. Cit(A)'] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ld. Ao In Making An Adhoc Disallowance Of 50% In Relation To The Shared Service Expenses Amounting To Inr 91,92,505/-.

For Appellant: Pratik ShahFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

Amplus Power Solutions Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT-Circle-1(1), Delhi

In the result, ground no. 1 to 8 of appeal are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1213/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं.1213/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) Amplus Power Solutions P. Ltd., 6Th Floor, The Palm Square, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector-66, Gurugram 122102, Haryana ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaoca0544J बनाम Vs. The Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-Circle1(1), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 29.3.2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Nine Grounds. The Ground No. 1 To 8 Of Appeal Are Against Addition Made On Interest On Non Convertible Debentures & Non Compliance Of Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) By The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo)/Assessing Officer (Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)