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

condone the delay of `2′ days in filing of the appeal and the\nappeal filed by the Revenue is taken up for hearing on merits.\n3. Briefly stated, the facts relating to the present appeal are that, a\nsearch action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on Jayapriya group on 16-\n12-2021. In the course of search

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

condone the delay of 5 days in filing\nthese appeals and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.\n3.\nCommon issues are raised in these appeals, hence they\nwere heard together and are being disposed off by this\nconsolidated order. We shall first adjudicate the appeal preferred\nby the Revenue in ITA No.1650/Chny/2025 pertaining to the\nA.Y.2015-16, which arises

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

condone the delay of 5 days in filing\nthese appeals and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.\n3.\nCommon issues are raised in these appeals, hence they\nwere heard together and are being disposed off by this\nconsolidated order. We shall first adjudicate the appeal preferred\nby the Revenue in ITA No.1650/Chny/2025 pertaining to the\nA.Y.2015-16, which arises

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

condone the delay of 5 days in filing\nthese appeals and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.\n3.\nCommon issues are raised in these appeals, hence they\nwere heard together and are being disposed off by this\nconsolidated order. We shall first adjudicate the appeal preferred\nby the Revenue in ITA No.1650/Chny/2025 pertaining to the\nA.Y.2015-16, which arises

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

condone the delay of 5 days in filing\nthese appeals and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.\n3.\nCommon issues are raised in these appeals, hence they\nwere heard together and are being disposed off by this\nconsolidated order. We shall first adjudicate the appeal preferred\nby the Revenue in ITA No.1650/Chny/2025 pertaining to the\nA.Y.2015-16, which arises

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

D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking-off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition 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. Even

S MATHIALAGAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 766/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri. S. Mathialagan, Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Durv & Associates Llp, V. Income Tax, Old No. 19, New No. 13B, New Non-Corporate Circle 13, Bangaru Colony First Street, Chennai. K K Nagar West, Chennai – 600 078. [Pan: Agnpm-2592-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2023

delay needs to be condoned is 490 days. He further submits that the appellant has accepted the CIT(A) order and paid tax along with interest based on the advice of his tax consultant on the bonafide belief that no penalty would be leviable on additions made on notional basis. However, the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

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].

condone 2 I.T.A. No. 1402/Chny/2015 the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) dated 30.03.2015, confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271

PVP VENTURES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking-off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition 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. Even in the body

M/S. JAYASREE CONSTRUCTION,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 8 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri. Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 682/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Jayasree Construction, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/A, Sekkiyar Street, V. Non Corporate Ward-8(2), Netaji Avenue Extn., Chennai – 600 034. Nerkundram, Chennai – 600 107. [Pan: Aadfj 2389N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri.T.V. Muthu Abirami Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2022

delay of 88 days is condoned. 3. The assessee raised following grounds which are as follows: “1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and at any rate against the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income