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

Section 271(1)(c), would require the A.O. to prove that\nspecifically there was some conduct on part of the assessee which would\nshow that the assessee consciously intended to hide his income.\n17. In this case, the A.O. in his order noted that the disclosure of higher\nincome in the return filed by the assessee was a 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

Section 271(1)(c), would require the A.O. to prove that\nspecifically there was some conduct on part of the assessee which would\nshow that the assessee consciously intended to hide his income.\n17. In this case, the A.O. in his order noted that the disclosure of higher\nincome in the return filed by the assessee was a consequence

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

Section 271(1)(c), would require the A.O. to prove that\nspecifically there was some conduct on part of the assessee which would\nshow that the assessee consciously intended to hide his income.\n17. In this case, the A.O. in his order noted that the disclosure of higher\nincome in the return filed by the assessee was a consequence

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 271(1)(c), would require the A.O. to prove that\nspecifically there was some conduct on part of the assessee which would\nshow that the assessee consciously intended to hide his income.\n17. In this case, the A.O. in his order noted that the disclosure of higher\nincome in the return filed by the assessee was a consequence

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 Act and issued show-cause notice dated 15.03.2012. The assessee filed its reply dated 21.03.2012 by stating that the penalty proceedings may be dropped. The content of the assessee’s reply is reproduced as under: In the return of income filed for the A.Y.2000-01 the assessee-company had claimed exemption u/s 1OB in respect

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

M/S. ARCHANA FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section 147 as above, it clearly implies that what is stressed therein is the assessment / reassessment of escaped Income which the AR himself has not disputed to have not taken place till date in the instant impugned case

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BEST & CROMPTON ENGG. LIMITED,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.600/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, an addition of `14,11,73,333/- was also made towards long term capital loss. Therefore, this addition of `14,11,73,333/- was also not considered for levy of penalty. However, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on the following additions made in the assessment order:- (i) Claim of depreciation

SOUTH INDIA SURGICALS CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.916/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. South India Surgical Company The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., New No. 117, Old No. 65, Vs. Income Tax, Wallajah Road, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs5091E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 28.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has wilfully concealed the particulars of income. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the land was classified as agricultural land and the report of the Inspector, IT Department clearly establishes that there is coconut trees, banana trees, drumstick trees, etc. It was the submission