This compilation indexes twelve Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rulings — spanning October 2025 to September 2026 — in which Section 270A(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was among the sections engaged. The cases originate from nine ITAT benches across India: Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Dehradun, Pune, and the Patna Bench sitting at Kolkata. The index is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured starting point for primary-source research on the mis-reporting limb of the Section 270A penalty regime.

Research index only. This page catalogues tribunal proceedings for reference purposes. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or a recommendation of any course of action. Readers must verify all details against the full text of the original judgment and check for any subsequent stay, reversal, or CBDT instruction before placing reliance.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for the levy of a penalty in cases of under-reporting and mis-reporting of income. Sub-section (9) of Section 270A specifies the circumstances that constitute "mis-reporting of income," including misrepresentation or suppression of facts, failure to record investments in books of account, claim of expenditure not substantiated by evidence, recording of false entry in books, failure to record receipt in books, and failure to report international transactions. Where income is under-reported and the under-reporting is in consequence of mis-reporting as defined under sub-section (9), the penalty leviable is enhanced to two hundred percent of the tax payable on the mis-reported income, as distinguished from the fifty percent penalty applicable to simple under-reporting cases under other sub-sections.

The 12 rulings

1. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 10(2) vs Wow Momo Foods Private Limited, Kolkata

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Date: 3 September 2026
Sections engaged: 270A(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: These are cross appeals preferred by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, as noted in the source preview. The matters relate to ITA Nos. 2455 & 2456/KOL/2025 and ITA Nos. 2448 & 2476/KOL/2025, covering Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2021-22, with the assessee identified by PAN No. AABCW6316K. The source preview does not supply substantive reasoning beyond the procedural framing of the cross-appeal structure before the Tribunal.

2. Nishant Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Date: 3 September 2026
Sections engaged: 250, 270A, 270A(1), 270A(6)(a), 270A(9), 80G
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal was filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, under Section 250, for Assessment Year 2019-20 (ITA No. 391/AHD/2026). The source preview records that the case was reopened based on information arising from a search and seizure operation on 23 Registered Unrecognised Political Parties of Ahmedabad on 07.09.2022, including Apna Dal Party, with the assessee's PAN recorded as AIDPA9335K. The substantive merits of the penalty challenge under the sections engaged are not set out further in the available preview.

3. Soheb Malik, Roorkee vs DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 2 September 2026
Sections engaged: 127, 132, 250, 270(8), 270A, 270A(9), 45
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The source preview records that the assessee filed an original return of income for Assessment Year 2023-24 declaring total income of Rs. 83,810/- on 31.12.2023, and that a search and seizure operation was conducted on the ALM Group on 03.01.2023, with the assessee associated with that group (ITA No. 3565/Del/2026, PAN: AXGPM1562L). The case was subsequently centralized pursuant to an order dated 13.06.2023 by the PCIT, Dehradun, and was selected for scrutiny assessment. The available preview does not set out the Tribunal's substantive reasoning on the penalty sections engaged.

4. Netizen Engineering Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 31 August 2026
Sections engaged: 270A(9), 270A(9)(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10479698), arising out of a penalty order dated 27.03.2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18, PAN/GIR No. AABCR7570C. Per the source preview, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 2,88,95,60,352/- for alleged under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting. The Tribunal's reasoning on the challenge to that levy is not reproduced in the available preview.

5. Mohd Azam Hasan Sheikh, Navi Mumbai vs ITO, Mumbai

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 20 August 2026
Sections engaged: 54D, 270A(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA 9263/MUM/2025) was filed by the assessee against a penalty order issued by the ITO, with the assessee identified by PAN BIOPS8470H, concerning Assessment Year 2017-18 as indicated in the source preview. The source preview references a penalty order bearing DIN ITBA/PNL/F/207A/2025-26/1077964784(1) dated 21 October (year partially cut off in the preview), and does not set out the Tribunal's substantive reasoning beyond this procedural framing.

6. Kaushal Jugal Taparia, Varodara vs Officer, Varodara

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Date: 30 July 2026
Sections engaged: 270A, 270A(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 74/AHD/2026) was preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11/11/2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which dismissed the appeal against a penalty order dated 07/07/2025 under Section 270A for Assessment Year 2019-2020, PAN AJAPT2365G. Per the source preview, the assessee raised seven grounds all directed against the CIT(A) order confirming the levy of penalty of INR 41,602/- under Section 270A. The Tribunal's substantive findings are not reproduced in the available preview.

7. Vishnu Reddy Kundoor, Hyderabad vs ITO, Int Taxn-1, Hyderabad

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Date: 22 July 2026
Sections engaged: 270A(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The source preview reflects that the assessee filed both a quantum appeal and a penalty appeal before the Tribunal (ITA Nos. 308 & 309/HYD/2026), with the matters relating to Assessment Year 2022-2023, PAN CJZPK3765L. The quantum appeal grounds include a challenge to additions made towards short-term capital gain by the Assessing Officer, with the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi also referenced. The Tribunal's specific reasoning on the Section 270A(9) penalty ground is not set out in the available preview.

8. Sermadevi Yegnaswamy vs Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(1)

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 20 July 2026
Sections engaged: 270A, 270A(2), 270A(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 20/BANG/2026) was filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 19/11/2025 in respect of a penalty under Section 270A, pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18, PAN AEDPR5274A. The source preview indicates the matter concerned a penalty under Section 270A but does not reproduce the Tribunal's substantive reasoning on the specific sub-sections engaged, including the mis-reporting limb.

9. Agraja Coir Weaver, Tiruvallur vs ITO, Ward-3, Vellore

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Date: 14 July 2026
Sections engaged: 270A, 270A(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeals (ITA Nos. 1941 & 1942/CHNY/2026) were filed by the assessee, M/s. Agraja Coir Weaver, for Assessment Year 2020-21, with PAN ABIFA8477G, heard through virtual mode as indicated in the source preview. The source preview is primarily procedural in content — listing parties, representatives, bench composition, and the copy-forwarding directions — and does not reproduce the substantive reasoning underpinning the penalty challenge.

10. Sandeep Thakur, Rishikesh vs ITO, Ward 1(4)(1), Rishikesh

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Dehradun
Date: 10 July 2026
Sections engaged: 270A, 270A(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (ITA No. 218/DDN/2026) for Assessment Year 2018-19 (PAN No. AIUPT7247A) arises from an order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the NFAC. Per the source preview, the assessee's claim amounting to Rs. 8,30,000/- was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, and thereafter penalty proceedings under Section 270A were initiated and penalty was levied under that section. The aggrieved assessee then approached the CIT(A); the Tribunal's substantive findings on the penalty are not set out in the available preview.

11. Ampacet Speciality Products Private vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Date: 9 March 2026
Sections engaged: 270A, 270A(9)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 1987/PUN/2025) pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21 (PAN AAICA2806P) was directed against the NFAC order dated 02.06.2025 arising from an assessment order dated 29.09.2023. Per the source preview, the assessee contended that the Assessing Officer erred in not considering income as per the return filed and instead computed income under a different basis, and that the NFAC failed to consider this ground in its order. The Tribunal's specific reasoning on the Section 270A(9) penalty aspect is not reproduced in the available preview.

12. Sangam Almirah Private vs NFAC, Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Patna
Date: 27 October 2025
Sections engaged: 270A(9), 270A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This appeal (I.T.A. No. 338/PAT/2025) for Assessment Year 2018-19 (PAN AAYCS4686B) was filed by the assessee against the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi order dated 10.06.2025, which was itself passed against a penalty order dated 10.02.2022 under Section 270A. The matter was heard before the Patna Bench sitting at Kolkata as a virtual court. The source preview does not reproduce the Tribunal's substantive reasoning on the penalty grounds raised by the assessee.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

NFAC as the intermediate appellate forum. In the majority of these cases — including those from Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, Dehradun, Pune, and Patna — the assessee's immediate prior forum before approaching the ITAT was the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, acting under Section 250. This reflects the systemic channelling of first-level appeals through the NFAC infrastructure, with Section 270A(9) penalty disputes forming a distinct stream reaching the Tribunal at second appeal.
Section 270A(9) appearing both standalone and alongside parent and related sub-sections. Several cases cite only Section 270A(9) in isolation, while others couple it with the parent Section 270A and particular sub-sections such as 270A(1), 270A(2), 270A(6)(a), or 270A(9)(a). This variation suggests that the precise sub-section framing of the penalty order is litigated as a distinct issue in some matters — for instance, whether the mis-reporting limb or the under-reporting limb applies — while in others the challenge is directed more broadly at the entire penalty levy.
Cross-year and multi-ITA consolidation. At least one set of proceedings (Case 1, covering Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2021-22) involved cross appeals by both the assessee and the Revenue with four ITA numbers consolidated before a single bench. This pattern of consolidation of multiple assessment years and cross-appeals before one ITAT bench is a recurring procedural feature in penalty matters under Section 270A(9).
Penalty proceedings linked to search and seizure contexts. In at least two cases in this compilation (Cases 2 and 3), the Section 270A(9) penalty proceedings arose in a factual background that included search and seizure operations under Section 132, suggesting that centralized assessment following search actions is one pathway through which mis-reporting allegations and the enhanced penalty limb of Section 270A(9) are engaged.
Outcome data limited in the available source corpus. All twelve rulings in this compilation are recorded with "Outcome not specified in source" in the structured data. Researchers should access the full text of each judgment from the original court portal or indiankanoon.org before drawing any conclusions about the disposition of these appeals, as the outcome field in the source corpus does not reproduce the Tribunal's ultimate direction in these matters.

How to use this compilation

This index is a finding aid, not a substitute for primary-source research. Each entry above identifies the parties, bench, date, sections engaged, and procedural context as extracted from the structured source corpus. To conduct complete research on any of these matters, you should retrieve the full text of the order from the relevant ITAT bench's official portal, indiankanoon.org, or the Income Tax Department's e-filing and judgment repositories. Full texts will contain the Tribunal's factual findings, legal reasoning, directions, and — where applicable — any dissenting or concurring notes by individual members.

Before placing reliance on any ruling listed here, verify whether the order has been challenged before the High Court or the Supreme Court, whether a stay has been granted, or whether the matter has been remanded for fresh consideration. ITAT orders in penalty matters are frequently the subject of further appellate proceedings, and the jurisdictional High Court's position on the legal questions raised may differ from or supersede the Tribunal's view. Additionally, check for any CBDT circular, instruction, or notification that may bear on the interpretation of Section 270A(9) and its interaction with immunity provisions applicable to penalty proceedings.

This compilation will be updated as additional rulings are indexed in the TaxNoticeAI corpus. Researchers tracking this area should also monitor the ITAT's published cause lists and order registers across the benches represented here — Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Dehradun, Pune, and Patna — as Section 270A(9) litigation remains active across jurisdictions and assessment years in the current compliance cycle.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 270A(9) Penalty: 12 ITAT Rulings Compilation (2025–2026)