https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762452 The ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal against penalty u/s 270A for alleged misreporting of income. The AO had denied exemption u/s 54F claiming the assessee owned two residential properties, but the tribunal found no misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The assessee had disclosed all relevant information and held a bonafide belief that only the property purchased in his name qualified for exemption, while the inherited property belonged to his deceased mother. The tribunal held that penalty u/s 270A requires establishment of misreporting under specific clauses, and the AO failed to specify which limb applied or prove misreporting occurred. en-us Wed, 27 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Dec 2024 08:53:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762452 The ITAT Mumbai allowed the assessee's appeal against penalty u/s 270A for alleged misreporting of income. The AO had denied exemption u/s 54F claiming the assessee owned two residential properties, but the tribunal found no misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The assessee had disclosed all relevant information and held a bonafide belief that only the property purchased in his name qualified for exemption, while the inherited property belonged to his deceased mother. The tribunal held that penalty u/s 270A requires establishment of misreporting under specific clauses, and the AO failed to specify which limb applied or prove misreporting occurred. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762452