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

Blupex Vinimoy Pvt. Ltd., North Twenty Four Parganas vs. I.T.O., Ward - 14(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2274/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2274/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Blupex Vinimoy Private Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-14(1), Kolkata The Terminus, Room No.415, 4Th Floor, 32 Marg, Bg-12, Aa-1B, North 24 Parganas, New Town, West Bengal-56 Pan No. :Aabcb 0157 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Deep Agarwal, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 11.09.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of The Act 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Appeal Is A Penalty Appeal & The Quantum Matter Is Pending Before The Ld.Cit(A). It Was Also The Submission That The Main Issue For Levy Of Penalty Was A Valuation Report Which Had Not Received By The Assessing Officer When The Assessment Order Was Passed. It Was The Submission That Even Till Date The Valuation Report Has Not Been Received Nor Has Been Provided Too The Assessee. It Was The Submission In Page 2 Of The Order The Ld. Cit(A) Has Categorically Condoned The Delay, However, In Para 5.7 Of His Order, He Has Dismissed

For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr.DR
Section 270ASection 50CSection 50C(2)

Biswarup Samadder, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1379/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Biswarup Samadder…..……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 164/A, Bidhan Pally, Garia, Kol-84.. [Pan: Auqps2353G] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Haldia……………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Sanjay Bhattacharaya, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Ruchika Sharma, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 05, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020–21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Income Tax Return Declaring Total Income At Rs.4,12,600/- & The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For Examining Issue Related To Investment In Immovable Property. During Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Was A Developer & Had Executed Development Agreements With Respect To Three Immovable Properties Whose Owners Were Persons Other Than The Assessee & The Agreements Were Got Registered In The Office Of Registering Authority. The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Purchase-Consideration Was Less Than Biswarup Samadder The Value Of Properties Assessed By Stamp Valuation Authority. He, Therefore, Made Addition Of Rs. 1,03,71,727/- U/S 43Ca Of The Act Treating The Difference Between Transfer-Consideration & Value Assessed By Stamp Valuation Authority

Section 250Section 270ASection 43C