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, 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, 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, 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

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to whether assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the impugned penalty was invalid and same was to be set aside. The adjudication of Hon’ble Court was as under: - 18. The first aspect is as to whether there

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to whether assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the impugned penalty was invalid and same was to be set aside. The adjudication of Hon’ble Court was as under: - 18. The first aspect is as to whether there

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to whether assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the impugned penalty was invalid and same was to be set aside. The adjudication of Hon’ble Court was as under: - 18. The first aspect is as to whether there

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to whether assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the impugned penalty was invalid and same was to be set aside. The adjudication of Hon’ble Court was as under: - 18. The first aspect is as to whether there

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to whether assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the impugned penalty was invalid and same was to be set aside. The adjudication of Hon’ble Court was as under: - 18. The first aspect is as to whether there

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to whether assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the impugned penalty was invalid and same was to be set aside. The adjudication of Hon’ble Court was as under: - 18. The first aspect is as to whether there

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to whether assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the impugned penalty was invalid and same was to be set aside. The adjudication of Hon’ble Court was as under: - 18. The first aspect is as to whether there

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) did not specifically state as to whether assessee was guilty of concealing particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence, the impugned penalty was invalid and same was to be set aside. The adjudication of Hon’ble Court was as under: - 18. The first aspect is as to whether there

PVP VENTURES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Capital Gains on land for Rs.3107.20 Lacs. 3.2 Subsequent to framing of assessment, penalty proceedings were initiated against the issue and initial show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was issued on 31.12.2010 which read as under: - Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 appears to me that you:- *have without

KEMIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The case laws being relied upon by the assessee including the decision in CIT V/s Reliance Petro Products Private Ltd. (322 ITR 158) were held to be distinguishable. Rather the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT V/s Mak Data Private Ltd. (38 Taxmann.com 448) was held to be applicable where

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