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)(c) and hence penalty is leviable on this ground. (b

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

b), in the prescribed form and verified in the\nprescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be\nprescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be,\napply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be\nfurnished under section 139.\"\n20. Therefore, the position that emerges from the above-mentioned\nprovision

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

b), in the prescribed form and verified in the\nprescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be\nprescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be,\napply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be\nfurnished under section 139.\"\n20. Therefore, the position that emerges from the above-mentioned\nprovision

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

b), in the prescribed form and verified in the\nprescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be\nprescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be,\napply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be\nfurnished under section 139.\"\n20.\nTherefore, the position that emerges from the above-mentioned\nprovision

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

b), in the prescribed form and verified in the\nprescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be\nprescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be,\napply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be\nfurnished under section 139.\"\n20.\nTherefore, the position that emerges from the above-mentioned\nprovision

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

b), in the prescribed form and verified in the\nprescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be\nprescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be,\napply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be\nfurnished under section 139.\"\n20.\nTherefore, the position that emerges from the above-mentioned\nprovision

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

b), in the prescribed form and verified in the\nprescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be\nprescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be,\napply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be\nfurnished under section 139.\"\n20.\nTherefore, the position that emerges from the above-mentioned\nprovision

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

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

capitation fees,\nfailed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced\npenalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a).\n•\nThe 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate.\nInvalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat the legislative\nintent to deter tax evasion in search cases.\ne. Holistic Interpretation of the Notice\n•\nThe notice should

ST. JOSHEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

capitation fees,\nfailed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced\npenalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a).\n• The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate.\nInvalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat the legislative\nintent to deter tax evasion in search cases.\ne. Holistic Interpretation of the Notice\n• The notice should

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 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 80 (Delhi)\nShanbhag Restaurant v. DCIT [2004] 134 TAXMAN 495 (Karnataka)\n15. The Ld. AR further submitted that, the Revenue's contention that,\nthe date of initiation of penalty cannot be reckoned from the date on\nwhich the AO records his satisfaction, because the AO is not the\ncompetent authority to levy penalty

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

B. Sathyamoorthy, partner of Erode based builder firm (M/s S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee of the trust had admitted Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee

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

B. Sathyamoorthy, partner of Erode based builder firm (M/s S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee of the trust had admitted Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee

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

B. Sathyamoorthy, partner of Erode based builder firm (M/s S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee of the trust had admitted Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee

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

B. Sathyamoorthy, partner of Erode based builder firm (M/s S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee of the trust had admitted Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee

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

B. Sathyamoorthy, partner of Erode based builder firm (M/s S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee of the trust had admitted Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee

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

B. Sathyamoorthy, partner of Erode based builder firm (M/s S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. S.Selvaraj& Co) and Shri S. Sethurajan site Engineer of the firm. Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee of the trust had admitted Shri R. Palanisamy, the managing trustee