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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Lucknow vs. Rakesh Gupta HUF, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 335/LKW/2024[2018 - 19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2026

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Rakesh Gupta Huf, Tax, Circle-1, Lucknow, Lucknow Lucknow Pan: Aalhr7070L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.04.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 24.02.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Assessing Officer, Passed Under Section 143(3) For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 15.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred By Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 16,69,47,753/- Made Pertaining To The Issue Of Unsecured Loan During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Assessee Failed To Explain The Issue Of Unsecured Loan. There Was Increase Of Unsecured Loan During The F.Y. 2017-18 Relevant To A.Y. 2018-19 To The Tune Of Rs. 16,69,47,753/-. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred By Not Considering The Facts That The Assessee Failed To Provide The Identity Of Lender Of Unsecured Loan & Their Creditworthiness During The Course Of The Assessment Proceedings. Accordingly The Amount To The Tune Of Rs 16,69,47,753/-Has Been Determined As Unexplained Credit U/S 68 Of The 1.T. Act. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of 1,16,92,894/- Made U/S 57 Of The 1.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Failed To Substantiate That Expenses Inade To The Tune Of Rs. 1,97,76,088/- Were Made Wholly & Exclusively For The Purpose Of 1 A.Y. 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 148A(1)Section 148A(3)Section 149Section 250Section 57Section 68