D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was wholly unwarranted as there had been no fraud or wilful neglect and that the assessee had only, with a view to cooperate with the Department, agreed to the addition. We observe that the above position will help the assessee, as there is not even a remote allegation that there was any fraudulent

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under

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

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under

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) of the Act was wholly unwarranted as there had been no fraud or wilful neglect and that the assessee had only, with a view to cooperate with the Department, agreed to the addition. We observe that the above position will help the assessee, as there is not even a remote allegation that there was any fraudulent

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) of the Act was wholly unwarranted as there had been no fraud or wilful neglect and that the assessee had only, with a view to cooperate with the Department, agreed to the addition. We observe that the above position will help the assessee, as there is not even a remote allegation that there was any fraudulent

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) of the Act was wholly unwarranted as there had been no fraud or wilful neglect and that the assessee had only, with a view to cooperate with the Department, agreed to the addition. We observe that the above position will help the assessee, as there is not even a remote allegation that there was any fraudulent

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) of the Act was wholly unwarranted as there had been no fraud or wilful neglect and that the assessee had only, with a view to cooperate with the Department, agreed to the addition. We observe that the above position will help the assessee, as there is not even a remote allegation that there was any fraudulent

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) of the Act was wholly unwarranted as there had been no fraud or wilful neglect and that the assessee had only, with a view to cooperate with the Department, agreed to the addition. We observe that the above position will help the assessee, as there is not even a remote allegation that there was any fraudulent

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) of the Act was wholly unwarranted as there had been no fraud or wilful neglect and that the assessee had only, with a view to cooperate with the Department, agreed to the addition. We observe that the above position will help the assessee, as there is not even a remote allegation that there was any fraudulent

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) of the Act was wholly unwarranted as there had been no fraud or wilful neglect and that the assessee had only, with a view to cooperate with the Department, agreed to the addition. We observe that the above position will help the assessee, as there is not even a remote allegation that there was any fraudulent

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) of the Act was wholly unwarranted as there had been no fraud or wilful neglect and that the assessee had only, with a view to cooperate with the Department, agreed to the addition. We observe that the above position will help the assessee, as there is not even a remote allegation that there was any fraudulent

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. S & P FOUNDATION P. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 382/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle Iv(2), [Pan:Aaics0224K] Chennai - 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2085/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle Iv(2), Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Chennai - 34. Chennai 600 017. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri J. Pavithran Kumar, Jcit Department By : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai, Dated 05.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

delays in filing of both the appeals are condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee filed the appeal challenging the direction of the ld. CIT(A) to levy the penalty under section 271AAA of the Act in place of penalty levied under section 271(1

S & P FOUNDATIONS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 382/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle Iv(2), [Pan:Aaics0224K] Chennai - 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2085/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle Iv(2), Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Chennai - 34. Chennai 600 017. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri J. Pavithran Kumar, Jcit Department By : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai, Dated 05.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

delays in filing of both the appeals are condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee filed the appeal challenging the direction of the ld. CIT(A) to levy the penalty under section 271AAA of the Act in place of penalty levied under section 271(1

M.ARUN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Chny/2021 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was wholly unwarranted as there had been no fraud or wilful neglect and that the assessee had only, with a view to cooperate with the Department, agreed to the addition. We observe that the above position will help the assessee, as there is not even a remote allegation that there was any fraudulent