COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) results in\nenhancement of business income and the same shall be eligible for enhanced\ndeduction under section 10A/ 10AA of the Act.\n\nOthers\n\n18. The learned AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) results in\nenhancement of business income and the same shall be eligible for enhanced\ndeduction under section 10A/ 10AA of the Act.\nOthers\n19. The learned AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty\nproceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) results in\nenhancement of business income and the same shall be eligible for enhanced\ndeduction under section 10A/ 10AA of the Act.\nOthers\n18. The learned AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) results in\nenhancement of business income and the same shall be eligible for enhanced\ndeduction under section 10A/ 10AA of the Act.\n\nOthers\n\n18. The learned AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) results in\nenhancement of business income and the same shall be eligible for enhanced\ndeduction under Section 10A/ 10AA of the Act.\nOthers\n18. The learned AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty\nproceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) results in\nenhancement of business income and the same shall be eligible for enhanced\ndeduction under section 10A/ 10AA of the Act.\nOthers\n18. The learned AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

disallowance under section 40(a)(i) results in\nenhancement of business income and the same shall be eligible for enhanced\ndeduction under section 10A/ 10AA of the Act.\nOthers\n19. The learned AO has erred in law and facts, by initiating penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271

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

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2084/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. S & P Foundation P. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle Iv(2), Vs. Old No. 27, New No. 38, Madley Road, 46, Nungambakkam High Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaics0224K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Shri I Dinesh, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 02.12.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai, Dated 05.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07 In Pursuance To The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

section 271(1)(c) is vague because, the Assessing Officer had not specific whether the penalty is on account of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It was further replied that the addition is only of ₹.13,000/- disallowed

PRESIDENCY KID LEATHER PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 765/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Presidency Kid Leather Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 21, Spartan Nagar, 1St Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Mogappair East, Chennai 600 037. Corporate Circle 5(2), [Pan:Aaacp1952D] Chennai 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2021 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) 3, Chennai, Dated 31.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14 Challenging The Appellate Order Of Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards disallowance of interest expenditure under section 43B of the Act as well

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].

disallowance, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held

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].

disallowance, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) held

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at : INR 201,663 and Transfer Pricing adjustments of at INR 1,48,48,492 & INR 40,96,82,652 and penalty proceedings under section 271

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at : INR 201,663 and Transfer Pricing adjustments of at INR 1,48,48,492 & INR 40,96,82,652 and penalty proceedings under section 271

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at : INR 201,663 and Transfer Pricing adjustments of at INR 1,48,48,492 & INR 40,96,82,652 and penalty proceedings under section 271

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Disallowance of escrow fee paid to bank under section 37 at : INR 201,663 and Transfer Pricing adjustments of at INR 1,48,48,492 & INR 40,96,82,652 and penalty proceedings under section 271

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) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

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) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

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) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have