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)

u/s 271D expired on 30.09.2021. However, the penalty show-cause notice was issued by the Addl. CIT on 02.11.2021 and the penalty order was passed on 30.05.2022. It is therefore evident that the penalty order has not been passed within the statutory time limit which lapsed on 30.09.2021. In view of this reason, it is held that the penalty order

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)

u/s 271D expired on 30.09.2021. However, the penalty show-cause notice was issued by the Addl. CIT on 02.11.2021 and the penalty order was passed on 30.05.2022. It is therefore evident that the penalty order has not been passed within the statutory time limit which lapsed on 30.09.2021. In view of this reason, it is held that the penalty order

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)

u/s 271D expired on 30.09.2021. However, the penalty show-cause notice was issued by the Addl. CIT on 02.11.2021 and the penalty order was passed on 30.05.2022. It is therefore evident that the penalty order has not been passed within the statutory time limit which lapsed on 30.09.2021. In view of this reason, it is held that the penalty order

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. GHISULAI KOTHARI, CHENNAI

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

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

disallowance u/s 14A and treatment of agricultural income for Rs.3.43 Lacs. However, since self-assessment tax was not paid and the assessee failed to rectify the defect, the return was treated as not filed and the assessment was made on best judgment basis u/s 144. 4.2 During the course of search, excess jewellery and cash was found besides allegation

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequent to the date of the\nassessment order, is merely of academic relevance. Accordingly,\nwe refrain from rendering any finding thereon.\n43.\nFurthermore, it is pertinent to observe that the Revenue\nhas failed to raise a specific ground of appeal challenging the\nfinding of the CIT(A) that the show cause notice dated\n27.03.2022

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequent to the date of the\nassessment order, is merely of academic relevance. Accordingly,\nwe refrain from rendering any finding thereon.\n43.\nFurthermore, it is pertinent to observe that the Revenue\nhas failed to raise a specific ground of appeal challenging the\nfinding of the CIT(A) that the show cause notice dated\n27.03.2022

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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. 271(1)(c) of the Act as levied by the Ld. AO vide separate orders. 2. The facts leading to penalty are pari-materia the same in all the years and therefore, adjudication in any one year shall be equally applicable to the other years also. For the purpose of adjudication, facts from AY 1998-99 have been considered

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. 271(1)(c) of the Act as levied by the Ld. AO vide separate orders. 2. The facts leading to penalty are pari-materia the same in all the years and therefore, adjudication in any one year shall be equally applicable to the other years also. For the purpose of adjudication, facts from AY 1998-99 have been considered

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. 271(1)(c) of the Act as levied by the Ld. AO vide separate orders. 2. The facts leading to penalty are pari-materia the same in all the years and therefore, adjudication in any one year shall be equally applicable to the other years also. For the purpose of adjudication, facts from AY 1998-99 have been considered

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. 271(1)(c) of the Act as levied by the Ld. AO vide separate orders. 2. The facts leading to penalty are pari-materia the same in all the years and therefore, adjudication in any one year shall be equally applicable to the other years also. For the purpose of adjudication, facts from AY 1998-99 have been considered

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. 271(1)(c) of the Act as levied by the Ld. AO vide separate orders. 2. The facts leading to penalty are pari-materia the same in all the years and therefore, adjudication in any one year shall be equally applicable to the other years also. For the purpose of adjudication, facts from AY 1998-99 have been considered

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. 271(1)(c) of the Act as levied by the Ld. AO vide separate orders. 2. The facts leading to penalty are pari-materia the same in all the years and therefore, adjudication in any one year shall be equally applicable to the other years also. For the purpose of adjudication, facts from AY 1998-99 have been considered

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. 271(1)(c) of the Act as levied by the Ld. AO vide separate orders. 2. The facts leading to penalty are pari-materia the same in all the years and therefore, adjudication in any one year shall be equally applicable to the other years also. For the purpose of adjudication, facts from AY 1998-99 have been considered

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. 271(1)(c) of the Act as levied by the Ld. AO vide separate orders. 2. The facts leading to penalty are pari-materia the same in all the years and therefore, adjudication in any one year shall be equally applicable to the other years also. For the purpose of adjudication, facts from AY 1998-99 have been considered

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SARDARMAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

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

disallowance u/s 14A and treatment of agricultural income for Rs.0.33 Lacs. However, since self-assessment tax was not paid and the assessee failed to rectify the defect, the return was treated as not filed and the assessment was made on best judgment basis u/s 144. 3.2 During the course of search, excess jewellery and cash was found besides allegation