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

Pegasus Event and Convention Services, Pune vs. ACIT Cir-7, Pune

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

ITA 186/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.186/Pun/2026 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Pegasus Event & Convention Services, Assistant Commissioner Services E 1/5 Phase Ii, Cibercity, Of Income Tax, Circle – 7, Haveli, Pune H.O., Pune-411001 Vs. Pune Pan : Aaifp8920C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain Date Of Hearing : 18-05-2026 Date Of 25-05-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.11.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2020-21. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.22,93,281/- Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For Under-Reporting Of Income Vide His Order Dated 19.08.2025. 3. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Firm Did Not Furnish Its Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Act For Ay 2020-21. Based On The Information Flagged On Insight Portal By The Directorate Of Income Tax (Systems), Cbdt, It Was Found That The Substantial Income Of The Assessee Chargeable To Tax Had Escaped Assessment For The Ay 2020-21. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Following The Mandated Procedure In Law. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee With The Prior Approval Of The Specified Authority. In Response To 2

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 274

Panchwadkar Shrihari Purshottam (HUF), Solapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Pandharpur

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

ITA 2929/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2929/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Panchwadkar Shriram Purshottam (Huf), Ito, Ward –2, 2085, Ashirvad, Hardias Ves, Pandharpur, Pandharpur Solapur-413304 Vs. Pan : Aalhp4822N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratik B. Sandbhor Department By : Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain Date Of Hearing : 20-05-2026 Date Of 25-05-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.09.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Wherein He Has Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs.16,15,028/- Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Huf Owing Rural Agricultural Land. Based On The Information Flagged On Insight Portal, It Was Found That The Assessee Had Earned Interest Income Of Rs.31,96,652/- During The Ay 2017-18, However, No Return Of Income Was Filed By The Assessee For The Relevant Ay. The Case Of The Assessee Was Thus Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act After Following The Mandated Provisions Of Law. Since, The Assessee Failed To Respond To The Various Notices Issued By The Ld. Ao During The Assessment Proceedings, The Ld. Ao Completed The Assessment Ex-Parte By Making Addition Of Rs.31,96,652/- As Income From Other Sources. Simultaneously, The Ld. Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A Of The Act. As There Was 2

For Appellant: Shri Pratik B. SandbhorFor Respondent: Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain
Section 147Section 148Section 270A

T 1349 Madukkar Paccs Ltd., Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thanjavur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 912/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.910/Chny/2026, ननिाारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.911/Chny/2026, ननिाारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.912/Chny/2026, ननिाारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. T 1349 Madukkur Paccs Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Madukkur Post, Pattukottai, Ward-1, Thanjavur, Thanjavur. Tamil Nadu-614 903. [Pan: Aacat8726F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Abhishek Murali, C.A : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2026 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society (Paccs) Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld.Cit(A)‘), Delhi. Ita No.911/Chny/2026 Is Against The Confirmation Of Quantum Assessment By The Ld.Cit(A) By Order Dated 16.12.2025 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ay‘) 2018-19 & Ita No.910/Chny/2016 Is Against The Penalty Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A)/

For Appellant: Mr.Abhishek Murali, C.A
Section 56Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

T 1349 Madukkur Paccs Ltd., Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thanjavur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 911/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.910/Chny/2026, ननिाारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.911/Chny/2026, ननिाारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.912/Chny/2026, ननिाारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. T 1349 Madukkur Paccs Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Madukkur Post, Pattukottai, Ward-1, Thanjavur, Thanjavur. Tamil Nadu-614 903. [Pan: Aacat8726F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Abhishek Murali, C.A : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2026 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society (Paccs) Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld.Cit(A)‘), Delhi. Ita No.911/Chny/2026 Is Against The Confirmation Of Quantum Assessment By The Ld.Cit(A) By Order Dated 16.12.2025 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ay‘) 2018-19 & Ita No.910/Chny/2016 Is Against The Penalty Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A)/

For Appellant: Mr.Abhishek Murali, C.A
Section 56Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

T 1349 Madukkur Paccs Ltd., Thanjavur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Thanjavur

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 910/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.910/Chny/2026, ननिाारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.911/Chny/2026, ननिाारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.912/Chny/2026, ननिाारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. T 1349 Madukkur Paccs Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Madukkur Post, Pattukottai, Ward-1, Thanjavur, Thanjavur. Tamil Nadu-614 903. [Pan: Aacat8726F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Abhishek Murali, C.A : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2026 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society (Paccs) Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Ld.Cit(A)‘), Delhi. Ita No.911/Chny/2026 Is Against The Confirmation Of Quantum Assessment By The Ld.Cit(A) By Order Dated 16.12.2025 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ay‘) 2018-19 & Ita No.910/Chny/2016 Is Against The Penalty Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A)/

For Appellant: Mr.Abhishek Murali, C.A
Section 56Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)