SANGUINE MEDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1594/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Sanguine Media Limited Ito बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-20(5) Chandran Nagar Main Road, Chennai Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.480/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito M/S. Sanguine Media Limited बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-10(6) Chennai Chandran Nagar Main Road, Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla (Ca) (Virtual)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

depreciation and therefore, penalty was justified on excess claim of depreciation of Rs.456.21 Lacs. The appeal was thus partly allowed

FLSMITH MINERALS (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1279/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Flsmidth Minerals P Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Since Merged With Flsmidthpvt. Ltd.) Vs. Company Circle –Ii(1), Flsmidth House, Chennai – 34. 34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 103. [Pan: Aaacf 1122D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shrig. Baskar, Advocate अपीलाथ&क'ओरसे/Appellant By *+यथ&क'ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Ann Mary Baby, Jcit

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) . Assessee appealed against that assessment order, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions/disallowance of (i) depreciation

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARASIMHULU GALI MUNUSAMI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.452/Mds/2017 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2012-13

penalty on disallowance of depreciation: The AO made the addition of Rs.2,11,846/- on account of disallowance of depreciation

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. CRN INVESTMENTS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2662/Mds/2004 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1996-97 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. Crn Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 10, Karpagambal Nagar, Company Circle – I(3), Luz, Chennai – 4. Chennai – 600 034. Pan : Aaacc3114A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per N.R.S. Ganesan:

depreciation on the steel roll to the extent of ₹10,48,450/- for the assessment year 1995-96 and the balance of ₹10,48,450/- for the next year. Now, the Ld. counsel for the assessee claims before this Tribunal that for the assessment year 1995-96, the penalty

SACS POWER PVT. LTD.,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2159/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sacs Power Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 3/314, Chinthamani Road, Vs. Income Tax, Rajaman Nagar Bus Stop, Circle-2(1), Madurai – 625 009. Trichy. [Pan: Aahcs 4952P]

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)© of the Act on excess claim of depreciation of Rs. 11,49,603/-. 3. The brief

R.PALANISAMY,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, TIRUPPUR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on the wrong claim of capital expenses, brought forward business loss and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation

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

depreciation penalty is not leviable.\nThe additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to\ninference of levying penalty. The Calcutta

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

depreciation penalty is not leviable.\nThe additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to\ninference of levying penalty. The Calcutta

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

depreciation penalty is not leviable.\nThe additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to\ninference of levying penalty. The Calcutta

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

depreciation penalty is not leviable.\nThe additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to\ninference of levying penalty. The Calcutta

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

depreciation penalty is not leviable.\nThe additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to\ninference of levying penalty. The Calcutta

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

depreciation penalty is not leviable.\nThe additions in assessment proceedings will not automatically lead to\ninference of levying penalty. The Calcutta

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MCML TRAIN CONTROL TEHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.14/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mcml Train Control Income Tax, Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Corporate Circle 4(1), No.C-9, Industrial Estate, Chennai. Yelahanka, Bengaluru 560 064. [Pan Aafcm 3804Q ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation claimed by the assessee, on these lines and such recomputation, resulted in an effective disallowance of Rs.1,85,67,205/-. It seems assessee did not prefer any appeal before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty

RKP POLY BAGS PVT. LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD5(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.145/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri M. Prabaharan, The Income Tax Officer, Managing Director, Vs. Corporate Ward-5(3), 389/5, Vellalar Street, Chennai. Aynambakkam – 600 095, Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aagcr-4875-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.548/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rkp Poly Bags Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 389/5, Vellalar Street, Vs. Corporate Ward-5(3), Aynambakkam – 600 095, Chennai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aagcr-4875-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Jeevarathinam, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl. Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

depreciation was at Rs. 17,86,187/- which was disallowed ITA Nos.145 & 548/Chny/2021 :- 3 -: and added to the returned income of the assessee. This assessment was finally accepted and the assessee paid tax on the same. No appeal was preferred against the assessment. 4. Subsequently, the A.O started penalty

M.PRABAHARAN,CHENNAI vs. CIT(A)-3, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.145/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri M. Prabaharan, The Income Tax Officer, Managing Director, Vs. Corporate Ward-5(3), 389/5, Vellalar Street, Chennai. Aynambakkam – 600 095, Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aagcr-4875-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.548/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rkp Poly Bags Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 389/5, Vellalar Street, Vs. Corporate Ward-5(3), Aynambakkam – 600 095, Chennai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aagcr-4875-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Jeevarathinam, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl. Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

depreciation was at Rs. 17,86,187/- which was disallowed ITA Nos.145 & 548/Chny/2021 :- 3 -: and added to the returned income of the assessee. This assessment was finally accepted and the assessee paid tax on the same. No appeal was preferred against the assessment. 4. Subsequently, the A.O started penalty

SENTHIL ENERGY PVT LTD,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, CORP WARD -4, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.581/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Senthil Energy Pvt.Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, 6Th Floor, Senthil Towers, Corporate Ward-4, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 018. Pan: Aascs 7231G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation at 15%. As such penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) is initiated separately.” 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. REDINGTON INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2219/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Redington India Ltd., Income Tax, V. Spl Guindy House, Corporate Circle – 5(1), 95, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 032. Pan : Aabcr 0347 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2 I.T.A. No.2219/Mds/15 2. Shri Shiva Srinivas, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee claimed depreciation

M/S TAMIZHVEL PT RAJAN COMMEMORATIUON TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS,WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

depreciation was already rendered. 3.17 The assessee also challenged penalty levied by Ld. AO for AYs 20- 13-14 to 2015-16. However

M/S THAMIZHVEL PT RAJAN TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO,EXEMPTIONS, WRD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

depreciation was already rendered. 3.17 The assessee also challenged penalty levied by Ld. AO for AYs 20- 13-14 to 2015-16. However