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

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

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

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

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

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

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

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

VIPIN KUMAR,HOSUR vs. ITO, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Vipin Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Hig – 5, Avalapalli Housing Board, V. Central Circle, Brindavan Nagar, Phase Vii,Tnhb Salem. Hosur – 636 109. Pan : Aafpb 9262 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Housing Board, v. Central Circle, Brindavan Nagar, Phase VII,TNHB Salem. Hosur – 636 109. PAN : AAFPB 9262 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Lakshmichand Nahata, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 05.05.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

house property'\nand thereby disallowing exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-.\nConsequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by\nthe AO. The quantum assessment was taken up in first appeal by the\nassessee and the issue of treating rental income from IT Park as business\nincome and consequently the claim of exemption

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

house property'\nand thereby disallowing exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-.\nConsequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by\nthe AO. The quantum assessment was taken up in first appeal by the\nassessee and the issue of treating rental income from IT Park as business\nincome and consequently the claim of exemption

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

271. However, according to him, the acquisition could not come through, due to zone ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 39 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 conversion problem. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, intention of the assessee was to start its MBA course in this property, since Chamiers Road property was not available. According to him Shri. V. Sampath had refunded

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

271. However, according to him, the acquisition could not come through, due to zone ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 39 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 conversion problem. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, intention of the assessee was to start its MBA course in this property, since Chamiers Road property was not available. According to him Shri. V. Sampath had refunded

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

271. However, according to him, the acquisition could not come through, due to zone ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 39 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 conversion problem. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, intention of the assessee was to start its MBA course in this property, since Chamiers Road property was not available. According to him Shri. V. Sampath had refunded

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

271. However, according to him, the acquisition could not come through, due to zone ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 39 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 conversion problem. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, intention of the assessee was to start its MBA course in this property, since Chamiers Road property was not available. According to him Shri. V. Sampath had refunded

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

house property' and thereby disallowing exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the AO. The quantum assessment was taken up in first appeal by the assessee and the issue of treating rental income from IT Park as business income and consequently the claim of exemption

D.HARINDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

property tax was paid for the super structure and there was no building in the nature of the residential house. Therefore, the assessing officer found that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 54/54F. Accordingly, the assessing officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c

M.MALARVIZHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.779/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. M. Malarvizhi, The Income Tax Officer, 18, Mettu Theru, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Kumananchavadi, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 056. [Pan:Apjpm2455H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 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) 9, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: “1. For That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Chennai U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Herein Without Noting That The Notice Issued By The 2

house property income and huge long term capital gain and even after receiving notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee has filed her return of income admitting only ₹. 2,15,130/- as income as against income admitted during the course of assessment proceedings of ₹.1,92,62,150/-. In view of the above and since 4 I.T.A. No.779/Chny/19