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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n87.\nThe AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\nwhich formed part

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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n86.\n87. The AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\nwhich formed part

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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n87.\nThe AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\nwhich formed part

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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n87.\nThe AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\nwhich formed part

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

penalty proceedings\nu/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act by issuing show cause notice u/s.274\nr.w.s 271AAB of the Act on 27.03.2022.\n87.\nThe AO show caused the assessee requiring to explain as to\nwhy penalty u/s.271AAB(1A) of the Act should not be levied in\nrespect of the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.4,42,15,889/-\n, which formed part

C.ELANGO,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

271(1)(c) not allowed. In the present case, the assessee has furnished the particulars and there is no Bonafide mistake in disclosure of capital gains. Hence, the penalty cannot be levied. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty on the addition made u/s

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the\nCross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Capital &Finlease Ltd (supra)\n“11. In fact, when the AO recommended the initiation of penalty\nproceedings the AO appeared to be conscious of the fact that he did not\nhave the power to issue notice as far as the penalty proceedings under\nSection 271-E was concerned. He, therefore, referred the matter\nconcerning penalty proceedings under Section 271

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

capital gains had arisen prior to 01.04.1999. In the case of alleged unexplained investments in land at Kodaikanal , the Assessing Officer further observed that the appellant had not fulfilled the condition stipulated to avail the benefit of immunity from the imposition of penalty proceeding provided in Explanation (5) to Section 271 (1) ( c) of the Act and therefore proceeded

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

capital gains had arisen prior to 01.04.1999. In the case of alleged unexplained investments in land at Kodaikanal , the Assessing Officer further observed that the appellant had not fulfilled the condition stipulated to avail the benefit of immunity from the imposition of penalty proceeding provided in Explanation (5) to Section 271 (1) ( c) of the Act and therefore proceeded

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

capital gains had arisen prior to 01.04.1999. In the case of alleged unexplained investments in land at Kodaikanal , the Assessing Officer further observed that the appellant had not fulfilled the condition stipulated to avail the benefit of immunity from the imposition of penalty proceeding provided in Explanation (5) to Section 271 (1) ( c) of the Act and therefore proceeded