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

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

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)(c

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)(c

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

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

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].

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by one day in filing the 2. appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation

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

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1) , CHENNAI vs. C.V.SUNISH, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1518/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri C.V. Sunish, Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1), Vs. C/O Aditya Trading Solutions (P) Ltd., 6Th & 7Th Floor, Npl Towers, L.B. Road, 46, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041. [Pan:Apfps3125J] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai Dated 15.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of ₹.22,38,721/- Levied Inadvertently Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 6 days, for which, the Revenue has filed petition for condonation

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing Vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out of orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA of the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18, to 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the Revenue are as under

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca : 03.09.2025 : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out of orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA of the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18, to 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the Revenue are as under

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing Vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out of orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA of the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18, to 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the Revenue are as under