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

Russel Premnath Rajappa, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-92, Chennai

ITA 1388/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Honourable George George K. & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1388 & Sa-92/Chny/2026 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2018-19 Russel Premnath Rajappa V. Income Tax Officer, No.16/10, Ramanujan Street, Ward-92, Choolaimedu High Road, Chennai. Near Moor Market, Chennai-600 094. [Pan: Agxpr1041D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms. Gayathri, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Beesam Narasing Rao, Jcit Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld.Cit(A)’), Dated 13.01.2026 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2018-19. Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Impugned Order Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Judicial Discipline Is Not Followed & The Impugned Order Is Passed Without Application Of Mind. 2. The Hon'Ble Appellate Authority Ought To Have Taken Into The Consideration The Fact That The Assessment Order Does Not Deals With The Finding In Respect To Misreporting Of The Income To Invoke Penalty Under Section 270A (8) 3. The Hon'Ble Appellate Authority Ought To Have Taken Into The Consideration That The Appellant Voluntary Disclosed Rs. 4,78,407/- As Deemed Income At The Time Of Reassessment & Further Paid Additional Tax Of Rs. Rs. 2,20,501/- As Determined By The Respondent Within The Due Date.

For Appellant: Ms. Gayathri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Beesam Narasing Rao, JCIT
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)