Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT

93 Taxmann.com 250High Court2018#352 most cited

What is Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is not invalid merely because it fails to strike off the irrelevant limb (concealment or inaccurate particulars) or specify the exact charge. Such a notice remains valid if the assessee understood the charge, was given adequate opportunity to respond, and failed to demonstrate any prejudice.

247

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT · Section 274 · Section 271(1)(c) · penalty notice validity · non-striking off limbs · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · no prejudice · Section 292B · Madras High Court

Also reported as

403 ITR 407

Sections most often in play

Section 274Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 139(1)Section 14ASection 270A

Issues it is cited on

section 274(1)section 43b(f)section 2(45)section 36(l)(iii)section 211section 271(l)section 32(1)(iia)house property incomesection 140section 271(l)(c)full and true disclosurefurnishing inaccurate particulars of income

Judgments citing Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. S. Deepalakshmi, Panruti

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:991/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Ms. S. Deepalakshmi, Income Tax, Vs. No.190, Annai Indira Gandhi Central Circle -2(2), Salai, Chennai. Panruti – 607 108. Pan: Awtpd 8317Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Smt. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""यथ"क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai - 19 Dated 13.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore For The Assessment Year 2016-17 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 31.12.2018. 2. The Sole Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied By Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.51,18,200/- For The Reason That There Is No Specific Charge Framed While Initiating Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act I.E., Whether Assessee Has Concealed The Particulars Of Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

For Appellant: Smt. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40

…ourt of Madras in the case of Babuji Jacob vs. ITO reported in [2021] 124 taxmann.com 363 (Madras), wherein Hon’ble High Court considering the decision cited by Revenue of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd., vs. ACIT reported in 403 ITR 407 (Mad) decided the issue in favor of assessee. Hence, the issue is covered by the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Babuji Jacob, supra, and accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in…

Jamna Devi Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 540/JPR/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 540 & 541/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09 cuke Smt. Jamna Devi Sharma The ITO Vs. Meena Ka Mohalla, Ward No. 2 Ward 7(2) Goner Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BXNPD 0140 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokb…

Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers Private Limited, Madurai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 794/CHNY/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.794/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Sri Jeyaprabha Jewellers – The Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle-2, 285/91 B, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai. Madurai-625 001. [Pan: Aarcs 2844 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…notice is bad in law and therefore the penalty levied needs to be deleted. 3. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the Ld.CIT(A) and cited the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [2018] 403 ITR 107 (Madras) wherein, the assessee had raised similar grounds (defective notice) was dismissed. Therefore, he doesn’t want us to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Since the assessee has raised legal issue regarding invalid notice issued u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s.27…

Swan Petrchemicals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 496/IND/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Swan Petrochemicals Dcit (Central), Pvt.Ltd, Indore Unit No.308 Acme Plaza, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Vs. Andheri Kurlka, Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr9592C Assessee By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan & Ms. Ruchira Singhal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(5)

…-62 of paper book and submitted that the A.O has specifically mentioned the charge for initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions; (i) Sundaram Finance Ltd V/s ACIT 403 ITR 407 (Madras). (ii)The SLP filed by the assessee was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 259 Taxman 220(SC). 6 M/s. Swan Petrochemicals Pvt.Ltd 4.1 He has also relied upon the impugned order of the CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions and relevant material on record. The assessee has not disputed the fact to the extent that…

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 959/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.957 To 959/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Om Shakthy Tower-2, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3), No.Ts 64, Chennai. Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aafpr 6559 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ed u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was the result of estimation of income. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the Ld.CIT(A) and cited the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [2018] 403 ITR 107 (Madras) wherein, the assessee had raised similar grounds (defective notice) was dismissed. Therefore, he doesn’t want us to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). ITA Nos.957 to 959/Chny/2023 (AY 2006-07 to 2008-09) Shri Raghav Reddy :: 4 :: 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Since the assesse…

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 958/CHNY/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.957 To 959/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Om Shakthy Tower-2, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3), No.Ts 64, Chennai. Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aafpr 6559 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ed u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was the result of estimation of income. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the Ld.CIT(A) and cited the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [2018] 403 ITR 107 (Madras) wherein, the assessee had raised similar grounds (defective notice) was dismissed. Therefore, he doesn’t want us to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). ITA Nos.957 to 959/Chny/2023 (AY 2006-07 to 2008-09) Shri Raghav Reddy :: 4 :: 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Since the assesse…

Shri Raghav Reddy, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 957/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.957 To 959/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2008-09 Shri Raghav Reddy, The Income Tax Officer, Om Shakthy Tower-2, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3), No.Ts 64, Chennai. Sidco Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aafpr 6559 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Ramesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ed u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, which was the result of estimation of income. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the Ld.CIT(A) and cited the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [2018] 403 ITR 107 (Madras) wherein, the assessee had raised similar grounds (defective notice) was dismissed. Therefore, he doesn’t want us to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A). ITA Nos.957 to 959/Chny/2023 (AY 2006-07 to 2008-09) Shri Raghav Reddy :: 4 :: 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Since the assesse…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-10, Chennai vs. Sj Suryah, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 594/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…harge made. 6. The Ld.DR is noted to have opposed the contention of the Ld.AR and inte-alia has submitted that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the ITA No.594/Chny/2024 (AY 2002-03) SJ Suryah :: 9 :: case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [2018] 403 ITR 107 (Madras) wherein, the assessee had raised similar grounds (defective notice) was dismissed. Therefore, the Ld.DR wants us to confirm the action of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. The Ld.DR also pointed out that the assessee’s quantum assessment was challenged by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) who was pleased to co…

Shri.S.J.Suryah, Chennai, Tamil Nadu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 806/CHNY/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…harge made. 6. The Ld.DR is noted to have opposed the contention of the Ld.AR and inte-alia has submitted that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the ITA No.594/Chny/2024 (AY 2002-03) SJ Suryah :: 9 :: case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. DCIT reported in [2018] 403 ITR 107 (Madras) wherein, the assessee had raised similar grounds (defective notice) was dismissed. Therefore, the Ld.DR wants us to confirm the action of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. The Ld.DR also pointed out that the assessee’s quantum assessment was challenged by the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) who was pleased to co…

Amit Kapoor, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

ITA 1445/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

…para 14) xv) Madhusudhanan (K. P.) ข. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC) (para 29) xvi) Mak Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) (paras 28, 29) xvii) National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Guj) (para 37) xviii) Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 403 ITR 407 (Mad) (para 16) 11. Moreover, we note from the totality of the facts of this case, that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty, because, assessee’s assertion/explanation that in the year under consideration (AY 2017-18) there was neither cash transaction nor cash deposits [in his bank-account as admitted by AO] in respect of sale of immovab…

Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, Tirupur vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Tirupur

ITA 1415/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

…para 14) xv) Madhusudhanan (K. P.) ข. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC) (para 29) xvi) Mak Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC) (paras 28, 29) xvii) National Textiles v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 125 (Guj) (para 37) xviii) Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2018] 403 ITR 407 (Mad) (para 16) 11. Moreover, we note from the totality of the facts of this case, that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty, because, assessee’s assertion/explanation that in the year under consideration (AY 2017-18) there was neither cash transaction nor cash deposits [in his bank-account as admitted by AO] in respect of sale of immovab…

Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM ITA No. 3556/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar, Bldg No.1, Room No.6, Income Tax Officer 1st Floor, Vaibhav C Wing, Ward 19(1)(1) Vs. Dedarkar Compound, Mumbai-400 Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAAPD8605N Assessee by : Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR : Smt. Mahita Nair, DR Revenue by Date of hearing: 14.05.2024 Date of pronouncement : 21.05.2024 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. ITA No. 3556/Mum/2023 is filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-…

Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM ITA No. 3556/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar, Bldg No.1, Room No.6, Income Tax Officer 1st Floor, Vaibhav C Wing, Ward 19(1)(1) Vs. Dedarkar Compound, Mumbai-400 Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAAPD8605N Assessee by : Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR : Smt. Mahita Nair, DR Revenue by Date of hearing: 14.05.2024 Date of pronouncement : 21.05.2024 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. ITA No. 3556/Mum/2023 is filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-…

Biswajit Nayak, Rourkela, Odisha vs. ACIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack15 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.19/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Biswajit Nayak, Vs Acit, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela Qtr.No.B-174, Sector-1, Rourkela-769008 Pan No. :Aaqpn 2087 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the AO has rightly levied the penalty. With regard to the defect in the notice, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance, reported in 403 ITR 407 (Madras HC) and supported the order of the lower authorities and requested for confirmation of the penalty so levied. 10. We have heard rival submissions. It is seen that the AO at the time of recording the satisfaction in the assessment order has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of…

M/S Enria Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT. Central Circle - 3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1167/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मंजूनाथा. जी, लेखा सद" एवं "ी मनोमोहनदास, "ाियक सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS,JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1166 & 1167/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/s.Enrica Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of – v. No.85, Matruvazhi Salai, Income Tax, (Bypass Road), Poonamallee, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-600 056. Chennai. [PAN: AAACE 9199 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri D. Anand,…

M/S Enrice Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मंजूनाथा. जी, लेखा सद" एवं "ी मनोमोहनदास, "ाियक सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS,JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1166 & 1167/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/s.Enrica Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of – v. No.85, Matruvazhi Salai, Income Tax, (Bypass Road), Poonamallee, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-600 056. Chennai. [PAN: AAACE 9199 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri D. Anand,…

M/S.Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

…Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 130 Taxmann.com 379. The Ld. Sr. DR, has similarly relied on decision of High Court of Madras in M/s. Gangotri Textiles Ltd vs DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171) as well as another decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 250) against which the assessee’s SLP has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 99 Taxmann.com 152. 8. Upon perusal of notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) as extracted above, we find that though the applicable clause has been ticked by Ld. AO, however, the applicable limb i.e., whether the penalty was being in…

M/S Enrica Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

…Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 130 Taxmann.com 379. The Ld. Sr. DR, has similarly relied on decision of High Court of Madras in M/s. Gangotri Textiles Ltd vs DCIT (121 Taxmann.com 171) as well as another decision in Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs ACIT (93 Taxmann.com 250) against which the assessee’s SLP has already been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported at 99 Taxmann.com 152. 8. Upon perusal of notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) as extracted above, we find that though the applicable clause has been ticked by Ld. AO, however, the applicable limb i.e., whether the penalty was being in…

Sree Navaladian Finance, Namakkal vs. ITO, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1157/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ther terminology to denote concealment as is an accepted terminology under the Act. ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 7.2 The ld.Senior DR further submitted that decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd Vs. ACIT, reported in 403 ITR 407 clearly applies to the case of the assessee. As in this reported case, the appellant was fully aware of its deed and concealed its real income for nearly six years, as a loan transaction, till it was revealed by means of physical survey conducted by the Department in the year 2020. On Department exposing such concealment and consequent to reopeni…

Sree Navaladiyan Finance, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1156/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ther terminology to denote concealment as is an accepted terminology under the Act. ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 7.2 The ld.Senior DR further submitted that decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd Vs. ACIT, reported in 403 ITR 407 clearly applies to the case of the assessee. As in this reported case, the appellant was fully aware of its deed and concealed its real income for nearly six years, as a loan transaction, till it was revealed by means of physical survey conducted by the Department in the year 2020. On Department exposing such concealment and consequent to reopeni…