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

Vinodray Nagjibhai Thacker, Bhuj vs. ITO, Ward-4, Gdham(Bhuj-2)/, Bhuj

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

ITA 195/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 194 & 195/Rjt/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18 ] Vinodray Nagjibhai Thacker, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Vs. 12 Zulelal Society, Near Court Gandhidham (Bhuj-2), Bhuj, Bldg, Bhuj, Gujarat-370001 Gujarat-370001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpt2539H (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2026 : आदेश /Order : Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2016-17 & 2017-18, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 15.03.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2022 & 29.03.2022, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Vinodray Nagjibhai Thacker, Bhuj vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Gandhidham (Bhuj - 2), Bhuj

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

ITA 194/RJT/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 194 & 195/Rjt/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18 ] Vinodray Nagjibhai Thacker, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Vs. 12 Zulelal Society, Near Court Gandhidham (Bhuj-2), Bhuj, Bldg, Bhuj, Gujarat-370001 Gujarat-370001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpt2539H (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2026 : आदेश /Order : Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ay) 2016-17 & 2017-18, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 15.03.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Dated 28.03.2022 & 29.03.2022, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148ASection 151Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Mariappan Rajendran, Thiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thiruvarur

ITA 2489/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2488-2489/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2019-20 Mariappan Rajendran The Income Tax Officer No.1, Ecr Road Sundaram Vs. Ward 1 Muthupet, Thiruvarur Thiruvarur. Tamil Nadu – 614 706. [Pan: Ajypr5900P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vishnu Sumath, Advocate For Shri. G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. K.Jayaganesh, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld.Cit(A)"], Both Dated 07.01.2026, Arising Out Of The Orders Passed By The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The :-2-: Ita. Nos:2488-2489/Chny/2026 Ao"] U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Dated 05.03.2024 & U/S.270A Of The Act Dated 04.09.2024, Respectively, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Assessment Proceedings & Are Interconnected, These Appeals Were Heard Together. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & To Avoid Repetition Of Facts, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. Vishnu Sumath, Advocate for Shri. G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K.Jayaganesh, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A

Mariappan Rajendran, Tiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thiruvarur

ITA 2488/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2488-2489/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2019-20 Mariappan Rajendran The Income Tax Officer No.1, Ecr Road Sundaram Vs. Ward 1 Muthupet, Thiruvarur Thiruvarur. Tamil Nadu – 614 706. [Pan: Ajypr5900P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Vishnu Sumath, Advocate For Shri. G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. K.Jayaganesh, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld.Cit(A)"], Both Dated 07.01.2026, Arising Out Of The Orders Passed By The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The :-2-: Ita. Nos:2488-2489/Chny/2026 Ao"] U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Dated 05.03.2024 & U/S.270A Of The Act Dated 04.09.2024, Respectively, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Arise Out Of The Same Assessment Proceedings & Are Interconnected, These Appeals Were Heard Together. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & To Avoid Repetition Of Facts, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. Vishnu Sumath, Advocate for Shri. G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K.Jayaganesh, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270A