https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770789 ITAT Bangalore allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted penalty under Section 270A. The AO imposed 200% penalty for misreporting income without establishing specific grounds under Section 270A(9) or satisfying sub-section (2) requirements. Following Schneider Electric judgment, ITAT held that failure to specify which clause (a) to (f) of Section 270A(9) applied rendered proceedings invalid. The tribunal emphasized that penalty is discretionary using "may" in Section 270A(1), and revenue must prove the assessee falls under particular default limb. Both AO and CIT(A) were confused between under-reporting and misreporting concepts, failing to bring the case within statutory requirements. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 May 2025 08:40:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770789 ITAT Bangalore allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted penalty under Section 270A. The AO imposed 200% penalty for misreporting income without establishing specific grounds under Section 270A(9) or satisfying sub-section (2) requirements. Following Schneider Electric judgment, ITAT held that failure to specify which clause (a) to (f) of Section 270A(9) applied rendered proceedings invalid. The tribunal emphasized that penalty is discretionary using "may" in Section 270A(1), and revenue must prove the assessee falls under particular default limb. Both AO and CIT(A) were confused between under-reporting and misreporting concepts, failing to bring the case within statutory requirements. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770789