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 High Court in the case of CIT v.\nSuresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an\noffer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and\nsuch offer is in consequence

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 High Court in the case of CIT v.\nSuresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an\noffer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and\nsuch offer is in consequence

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 High Court in the case of CIT v.\nSuresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an\noffer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and\nsuch offer is in consequence

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 High Court in the case of CIT v.\nSuresh Chand Bansal [2010] 329 ITR 330 held that where there was an\noffer of additional income in the revised return filed by the assessee and\nsuch offer is in consequence

M/S. AVM PRODUCTIONS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-20(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

depreciation. Therefore, addition which is confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), it is held that the assessee had mis- reporting the income and hence liable for imposition of penalty u/s.270A, which is accordingly being imposed. In this context, relevant extract of Section 270A is reproduced as under: "270A. Penalty for under reporting misreporting of income, etc.- (1) If the Assessing Officer

GATEWAY OFFICE PARKS PRIOVATE LIMITEDI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CICLE-6(1), CHENNAI

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

9) of\nsection 270A for the said previous year.\nExplanation.—For the purposes of this clause, —\n(a) the fair market value of the shares shall be the value-\n(i) as may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed; or\n(ii) as may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing

SRI KRISHA TRADERS,SIVAGANGAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2223/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

270A are initiated for under reporting of Income which was in consequence of mis-reporting of income.” 3. On further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the A.O. It is relevant to note here that the assessee has raised the legal contentions with regard to addition made by the A.O before the CIT(A) and that

RAJTELEVISION NETWORK LIMITED,CHNNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORAE CIRCLE-20, CHENNAI

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 530 & 531/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2018-19 Acit, Raj Television Network V. Non Corporate Circle 20, Limited, Chennai – 34. No. 32, Poes Road 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacr-3580-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri.K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

9. Hence, in view of the above, assessee's depreciation claimed wrongly is reduced tothe extent of Rs.2,18,24,056/- and accordingly the Depreciation reworks to Rs.4,79,93,266. :-8-: ITA. No:530 & 531/Chny/2024 (Rs.6,98,17,322-Rs.2,18,24,056). Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A are initiated for under reporting of income.” 10. Aggrieved by the order

RAJ TELEISION NETWORK LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORAE CIRCLE-20, CHENNAI

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 530 & 531/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2018-19 Acit, Raj Television Network V. Non Corporate Circle 20, Limited, Chennai – 34. No. 32, Poes Road 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacr-3580-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri.K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

9. Hence, in view of the above, assessee's depreciation claimed wrongly is reduced tothe extent of Rs.2,18,24,056/- and accordingly the Depreciation reworks to Rs.4,79,93,266. :-8-: ITA. No:530 & 531/Chny/2024 (Rs.6,98,17,322-Rs.2,18,24,056). Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A are initiated for under reporting of income.” 10. Aggrieved by the order