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

deemed to have been initiated only with the issue of notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(C) and that the said notice should specifically state the reasons for levy of penalty. Failure on the part of the AO to specifically state the reasons under which limb the penalty is levied would tantamount to failure to record satisfaction as well

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

deemed to have been initiated only with the issue of notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(C) and that the said notice should specifically state the reasons for levy of penalty. Failure on the part of the AO to specifically state the reasons under which limb the penalty is levied would tantamount to failure to record satisfaction as well

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

deemed to have been initiated only with the issue of notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(C) and that the said notice should specifically state the reasons for levy of penalty. Failure on the part of the AO to specifically state the reasons under which limb the penalty is levied would tantamount to failure to record satisfaction as well

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

deemed to have been initiated only with the issue of notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(C) and that the said notice should specifically state the reasons for levy of penalty. Failure on the part of the AO to specifically state the reasons under which limb the penalty is levied would tantamount to failure to record satisfaction as well

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

deemed to have been initiated only with the issue of notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(C) and that the said notice should specifically state the reasons for levy of penalty. Failure on the part of the AO to specifically state the reasons under which limb the penalty is levied would tantamount to failure to record satisfaction as well

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

deemed to have been initiated only with the issue of notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(C) and that the said notice should specifically state the reasons for levy of penalty. Failure on the part of the AO to specifically state the reasons under which limb the penalty is levied would tantamount to failure to record satisfaction as well

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

deemed to have been initiated only with the issue of notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(C) and that the said notice should specifically state the reasons for levy of penalty. Failure on the part of the AO to specifically state the reasons under which limb the penalty is levied would tantamount to failure to record satisfaction as well

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SMT. REETA LANKALINGAM, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S.S. Godara

271/- 5 17/2014 Assessee 2010-11 1. Deemed Dividend u/s.2(22) (e) – Addition of " 66,86,509/- 6 18/2014 Assessee 2011-12 1.Deemed Dividend u/s.2(22) (e) – Addition of " 2,42,99,879/- In the course of hearing, both parties agree that ITA No.19/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2005-2006 and ITA No. 21/Mds/2014 for the assessment year

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

deeming provisions are not applicable to the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner. [Para 63] • The imposition of penalty is not automatic, i.e., imposition of penalty even if the tax liability is admitted, is not automatic. Even if the assessee has not challenged the order of assessment levying tax and interest and has paid the same, that

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

deeming provisions are not applicable to the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner. [Para 63] • The imposition of penalty is not automatic, i.e., imposition of penalty even if the tax liability is admitted, is not automatic. Even if the assessee has not challenged the order of assessment levying tax and interest and has paid the same, that

CHANDRA RAMESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT(OSD), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the deemed dividend relying on the Gujarat High Court decisions in 221 ITR 66, 257 ITR 355 (Guj) and hence

MELONGOS INDIA PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP WARD -4(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) is also initiated for concealing the particulars of income. 5.1 Further, the CIT(A) hold that the advance of Rs.24 lakhs to the wife of Managing Director of the company is taxable u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act and for this, the CIT(A) observed in para 16 & 17 as under

ITO (IT), WARD 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1326/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1), #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

dividend or other income realized from NRE account would be fully exempt to tax and therefore these transactions were not reflected in the return of income. 2.3 The Ld. AO rejected the explanation on the ground that the fact of gains came to light only from the information as available with the department. The assessee did not disclose the transaction

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 10B to the tune of Rs.4,15,05,170/-. However, the auditor has remarked that out of the total repatriable amount of Rs.21,99,16,000/-, the assessee has collected only Rs.21,21,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee’s Authorised Representative was I.T.A. No.1405/Chny/2015 10 specifically required to furnish evidence for having received the entire

ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(C) pf the Act that an adjustment which has resulted from a mere difference of opinion between the learned AO / Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') and the Appellant. 8.2 The AO failed to appreciate that the Appellant had acted in good faith and with due diligence, and therefore it was not a case of deemed concealment

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

dividend which\nhad been deleted could not form the subject-matter of imposition of penalty under\nsection 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because the basis for imposition of\npenalty had ceased to exist. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the\npenalty imposed on account of the addition. \" (p. 189)\n5. CIT v. Bedi

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI vs. TVH ENERGY RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

deemed dividend invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Thus the ground raised by the assessee is allowed in its favour. 6. Ground No.2(ii) : Addition of Rs.7,60,32,100/- towards unaccounted cash expenditure under Section 69C of the Act:- During the course of scrutiny assessment it was observed by the Ld.AO that the Ld.DDIT

TVH ENERGY RESOURCES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

deemed dividend invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Thus the ground raised by the assessee is allowed in its favour. 6. Ground No.2(ii) : Addition of Rs.7,60,32,100/- towards unaccounted cash expenditure under Section 69C of the Act:- During the course of scrutiny assessment it was observed by the Ld.AO that the Ld.DDIT