BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

19 results for “TDS”+ Section 270Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi216Mumbai201Chandigarh64Bangalore62Pune38Jaipur28Ahmedabad26Hyderabad25Chennai19Kolkata15Lucknow11Nagpur10Visakhapatnam9Guwahati9Rajkot8Raipur8Indore5Patna4Surat2Jodhpur2Jabalpur2Dehradun1Amritsar1Cochin1Allahabad1SC1

Key Topics

Section 270A33Section 14818Addition to Income13Penalty11TDS10Condonation of Delay7Section 1396Section 1475Section 2634Section 143(3)

M/S. AVM PRODUCTIONS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-20(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

Section 270Section 270A

270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated vide notice u/s.270A of Act dated 25.10.2019 for mis-reporting of income and after hearing the assessee’s objection is noted to have imposed penalty of ₹6,82,606/- viz 200% of the amount of tax payable on misreporting income, vide penalty order M/s. AVM Productions :: 4 :: dated 25.02.2024. On appeal

RAGHAVAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NCC-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1776/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
4
Section 694
Section 404

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1776/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Raghavan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3503, Bay View House, Hiraranan, Non Corporate Circle 22(1). 5/63, Omr, Egattur, Thazambur, Tambaram, Chennai. Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu. 600 130 [Pan:Ajjpv9178L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 12 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)(b)Section 274

270A(2)(b) of the Act squarely applies to the cases with no return or first return under section 148 of the Act and thus, penalty is liable to be levied on under-reported income as assessed under section 147 of the Act. The ld. DR explained that TDS

CHITRA RAMANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-17(6), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 374/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.374/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chitra Ramanathan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4/139,G2 Cozee Waves Apt., Non Corporate Ward 17(6), 7Th Street Swaminathan Nagar, Chennai. Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 041. [Pan:Aigpr5643A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 01.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 270ASection 80C

270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. Fact are, in brief, that the assessee is an individual and having salary income. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed the 2 I.T.A. No. 374/Chny/23 return of income in ITR-1 on 19.07.2018 and declared gross salary income from Fidelity Business Services India

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1216/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

270A(2) of the Act as well, and the relevant findings being relied upon by us, are as under:- “16. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. It is well settled in law that, the penalty proceedings are separate and independent from the assessment proceedings. Only because an addition or a disallowance which

M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1215/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

270A(2) of the Act as well, and the relevant findings being relied upon by us, are as under:- “16. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. It is well settled in law that, the penalty proceedings are separate and independent from the assessment proceedings. Only because an addition or a disallowance which

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1217/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 148Section 270A(2)Section 271(1)(c)

270A(2) of the Act as well, and the relevant findings being relied upon by us, are as under:- “16. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. It is well settled in law that, the penalty proceedings are separate and independent from the assessment proceedings. Only because an addition or a disallowance which

IDUMBEN KNITTERS, ,TIRUPUR CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 711/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 711/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Idumban Knitters Assistant Commissioner Of S.F. No. 440, 443, Sbi Colony, V. Income Tax, Gandhi Nagar Post, Circle-1, Tirupur – 641 603. Tirupur. [Pan: Aaafi-7635-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M A Srinivasan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri. M A Srinivasan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 14Section 143Section 192Section 194JSection 270Section 40

section 270 A(1) r.w.s 270A(9)(a) of the Act, 3. Aggrieved by the erroneous assessment by The Honorable NFAC Assessing Authority, the assessee / appellant herein, filed Appeal in Form No.35, before the Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 30/09/2021, vide Acknowledgement no.614015300300921, against the erroneous assessment order dated 03/09/2021, vide DIN NO: ITBA/AST/S/147/2021- 22/1035283255(1 ). 4. Thereafter

RAJESH M. BHATIA (HUF),SALEM vs. DCIT, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1912/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1911 & 1912/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajesh M. Bhatia (Huf), Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 389, Trichy Main Road, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Salem 636 006. Salem. [Pan: Aachr9909R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 13.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Relating To Quantum Addition & Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 25Section 270A

270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. We find that the appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we 2 I.T.A. Nos.1911 & 1912/Chny/24 find the reasons stated by the assessee

RAJESH M. BHATIA (HUF),SALEM vs. DCIT, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1911/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1911 & 1912/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajesh M. Bhatia (Huf), Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 389, Trichy Main Road, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Salem 636 006. Salem. [Pan: Aachr9909R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 13.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Relating To Quantum Addition & Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 25Section 270A

270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. We find that the appeal was filed with a delay of 3 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said petition, we 2 I.T.A. Nos.1911 & 1912/Chny/24 find the reasons stated by the assessee

JAYAPRAKRASH ASHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 19(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2935/CHNY/2024[2018-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2018-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2935, 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayaprakash Asha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 10, Selva Lakshmi Homes, V.V. Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Colony 4Th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Awzpa4594L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Lekha Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 06.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Appeal In Ita No. 2935/Chny/2024 Deals With Quantum Addition & The Appeals In Ita No. 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 Are Filed Against Order Under Section 207A

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194ASection 207ASection 69A

TDS under section 194A of the 3 I.T.A. Nos.2935, 2936 & 2937/Chny/24 Act has been deducted. Since the assessee has not filed the return of income for the AY 2018-19, the Assessing Officer added the interest income to the total income of the assessee under the head “income from other sources”. Similarly, The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made

JAYAPRAKASH ASHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 19(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2937/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2935, 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayaprakash Asha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 10, Selva Lakshmi Homes, V.V. Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Colony 4Th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Awzpa4594L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Lekha Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 06.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Appeal In Ita No. 2935/Chny/2024 Deals With Quantum Addition & The Appeals In Ita No. 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 Are Filed Against Order Under Section 207A

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194ASection 207ASection 69A

TDS under section 194A of the 3 I.T.A. Nos.2935, 2936 & 2937/Chny/24 Act has been deducted. Since the assessee has not filed the return of income for the AY 2018-19, the Assessing Officer added the interest income to the total income of the assessee under the head “income from other sources”. Similarly, The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made

JAYAPRAKASH ASHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 19(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2936/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2935, 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayaprakash Asha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 10, Selva Lakshmi Homes, V.V. Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Colony 4Th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Awzpa4594L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Lekha Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 06.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Appeal In Ita No. 2935/Chny/2024 Deals With Quantum Addition & The Appeals In Ita No. 2936 & 2937/Chny/2024 Are Filed Against Order Under Section 207A

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 194ASection 207ASection 69A

TDS under section 194A of the 3 I.T.A. Nos.2935, 2936 & 2937/Chny/24 Act has been deducted. Since the assessee has not filed the return of income for the AY 2018-19, the Assessing Officer added the interest income to the total income of the assessee under the head “income from other sources”. Similarly, The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made

SANTHOSH ABRAHAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KANCHEEPURAM

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

ITA 3950/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3950/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & S.A. No. 137/Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 3950/Chny/2025] Shri Santhosh Abraham, The Income Tax Officer, 21, Morrison 2Nd Street, Vs. Ward 1, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. Kancheepuram. Pan: Aijpa 0742L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N.Sai Sathiyabama, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri N.Sai Sathiyabama, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 274

TDS on the said salary payments ITA No.3950/Chny/2025& :- 9 -: SA No.137/Chny/2025 almost covering 99% of total tax demand. The balance tax of sum of Rs.13,400/- is on account of penalty in not filing return of income and interest payment u/s.234A of the Act. Section 270A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. HITACHI SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed\nby the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1715/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND\nSHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपीलसं./IT(TP)A No.: 17/CHNY/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19\nHitachi Solutions India Private\nLimited,\nBlock 5, 10th Floor, 1/124,\nDLF IT Park, Shivaji Gardens,\nMount Poonamallee Road,\nChennai - 600 089.\nThe Deputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax,\nVs. Corporate Circle- 1(1),\nNo.121, M.G.Road,\nChennai - 600 034.\n[PAN:AAACZ-1544-R]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate by VirtualFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(4)

270A of the\nAct. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by dismissing the\nground undertaken by the Appellant with regards to abeyance of penalty\nproceedings initiated by the Ld. Assessing Officer.\nFurther, The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove before commencement

SHANMUGASUNDARAM VENKATACHALAPATHY,TIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised

ITA 2056/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Shanmugasundaram I.T.O., Venkatachalapathy, Vs. Ward-4, C/O-Durv & Associates Llp, No. Tirunelveli. 10/80, Avm Avenue 3Rd Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600092 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Acapv 3414 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

TDS has also been deducted by the respective companies under Section 194J of the Act, whereas in the ITR filed by the assessee, it was found that the gross receipts of Rs. 16,52,000/- and net profit of Rs. 8,26,000/- only were declared claiming it as ‘no account case’. The Assessing Officer, therefore, added

SUNITHA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT -1, COIM,BATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

270A is also initiated separately. You are hereby given an opportunity to show cause why the assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order. 3 Kindly submit your response through your registered e-filing account at www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in by 23:59 hours of 18/04/2021, whereby you may either.- a. accept the proposed modification; or b. file your written

M/S. DARWYN & VALE ASSOCIATES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1081/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1081/Chny/2025 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.Sudarshan, C.A GHFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 270ASection 274

270A of the Act for underreporting of income by issuing notice u/s 274 of the Act. As the assessee did not respond to the said notice, the A.O passed an ex- parte order levying penalty of Rs.8,78,457/- in respect of the underreported income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However

RAJ TELEISION NETWORK LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORAE CIRCLE-20, CHENNAI

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 530/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 530 & 531/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2018-19 Acit, Raj Television Network V. Non Corporate Circle 20, Limited, Chennai – 34. No. 32, Poes Road 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacr-3580-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri.K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri.K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. CIT
Section 263

section 263 rightly passed a revisional order setting aside said assessment - Held, yes [In favour of revenue]. Further, it is not demonstrated by the appellant whether the said expenses were recognized or claimed in Asstt. Year 2013-14 or not. Hence, the order of the AO cannot be interfered with, and accordingly, the ground of appeal No. 2 is dismissed

RAJTELEVISION NETWORK LIMITED,CHNNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORAE CIRCLE-20, CHENNAI

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 531/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 530 & 531/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2018-19 Acit, Raj Television Network V. Non Corporate Circle 20, Limited, Chennai – 34. No. 32, Poes Road 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacr-3580-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri.K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri.K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. CIT
Section 263

section 263 rightly passed a revisional order setting aside said assessment - Held, yes [In favour of revenue]. Further, it is not demonstrated by the appellant whether the said expenses were recognized or claimed in Asstt. Year 2013-14 or not. Hence, the order of the AO cannot be interfered with, and accordingly, the ground of appeal No. 2 is dismissed