PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 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) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

capital gain on sale at Rs.67.50 crores. In view of this, I am of the opinion that the assessee has failed to disclose its true and correct income and thereby attracted the provisions of section 271(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capitation fees, failed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a). • The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate. Invalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat the legislative intent to deter tax evasion in search cases. e. Holistic Interpretation of the Notice • The notice should be interpreted

ST.JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capitation fees, failed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a). • The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate. Invalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat the legislative intent to deter tax evasion in search cases. e. Holistic Interpretation of the Notice • The notice should be interpreted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the\nCross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Capital &Finlease Ltd (supra)\n“11. In fact, when the AO recommended the initiation of penalty\nproceedings the AO appeared to be conscious of the fact that he did not\nhave the power to issue notice as far as the penalty proceedings under\nSection 271-E was concerned. He, therefore, referred the matter\nconcerning penalty proceedings under Section 271

K. BASKAR,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

R.EASWARAMOORTHY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

K. SADASIVAM,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

M. NATESAN,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

M. VELUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

RAMASAMY PALANISAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

P. KARUNANITHI,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

S. ARAVIND,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri