Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.440

Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 440 (Immunity from imposition of penalty, etc) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 440 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 270AA is PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (432 ITR 84), cited in 185 of the 167 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 270AA

PCIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
432 ITR 84 · 2021 · High Court
185
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's failure to specify the exact limb (i.e., concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars) in the show-cause notice issued under Section 274 for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) vitiates the entire penalty proceedings.

Rajesh Kumar v. CIT
27 SCC 181 · 2007 · Reported
57
citing judgments

Where civil or evil consequences ensue from the action of a statutory authority, the principles of natural justice must be followed, even if not explicitly stated in the statute. Failure to comply with these principles may render a statute ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Bengaluru
280 Taxmann 334 · 2021 · High Court
42
citing judgments
Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC
142 Taxmann.com 38 · 2022 · High Court
32
citing judgments

When initiating penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) must specify the limb of the charge, indicating whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This requirement is essential for valid penalty proceedings.

Schneider Electric South East Asia (HQ) PTE Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) & Ors.
443 ITR 186 · 2022 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be imposed if the Assessing Officer fails to specify which clause under Section 270A(9) applies and fails to show cause to the assessee accordingly. Strict adherence to the conditions of Section 270A is mandatory for its applicability.

HCIL Arsspl Triveni (JV) v. ACIT (
274 ITR 603 · 2005 · High Court
21
citing judgments

An inaccurate claim made by the assessee cannot be treated as a case of giving inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of imposing penalty.

CIT v. ECS Ltd.
336 ITR 162 · 2011 · High Court
21
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's satisfaction for imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) must be discernible from the assessment order, even if not expressly recorded in a specific format.

PCIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar
111 Taxmann.com 256 · 2019 · High Court
18
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied under Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) for income declared in a return filed under section 153C, as Explanation 5A is confined to the searched person and not to persons covered under section 153C. This applies even if no addition is made by the AO to the voluntarily declared income.

Mumbai) 3. ITO v. Rasiklal N Satra
98 ITD 335 · 2006 · ITAT
17
citing judgments

The exemption under section 54F(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is available for capital gains arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset that is not a residential house.

159 Taxman 26 (P & H) (iii) S.M.J. Housing v. CIT
111 Taxmann.com 257 · 2019 · Supreme Court
15
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 270AA

Arvind Krishan Oberoi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 6 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 8712/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalarvind Krishan Oberoi Vs Ito Ward-17(1)(1), Mumbai Arvind Krishan Oberoi, 1 Room No.106, 1St Floor, Kautilya Nirvana, St Theresa Road, Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra (West), Mumbai- Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra 400050 (East), Mumbai-400051 Pan:Aaapo0686L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Respondent By : Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18, Date Of Order 24.10.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1)(1), Mumbai (For Brevity The ‘Ld. Ao’) Order Passed Under Section 270A Of The Act Date Of Order 27.03.2024. 2 Arvind Krishan Oberoi 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds:- “Ground 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order U/S 250 Confirming The Penalty U/S 270A & The Order U/S 270A Itself Are Bad In Law Because The Appellant'S Case Falls Under "Under-Reporting" As Per Sections 270A(2)(B) & 270A(3)(B)(B) & Not "Mis-Reporting" Under Section 270A(9); Therefore, Levy Of Penalty At 200 Per Cent Is Illegal & Unsustainable.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr DR)
Section 139Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)
Section 270AA Income Tax Act (2025: s.440) — Case Laws | BharatTax