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(1)(c) was issued to the assessee on 10.03.2014 which read as under: - “Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2009-10, it appears to me that you:- *have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me within of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given under Section

SHRI.S.J.SURYAH,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

exemption clause (f) of CBDT Circular as enumerated in letter dated 20.08.2018. Therefore, according to the Ld.DR, the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable. In his rejoinder, the Ld.AR fairly admitted that prosecution has been launched against the assessee from/after re- assessment order passed by the AO u/s.153A of the Act (after search) and not from the original assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. SJ SURYAH, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

exemption clause (f) of CBDT Circular as enumerated in letter dated 20.08.2018. Therefore, according to the Ld.DR, the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable. In his rejoinder, the Ld.AR fairly admitted that prosecution has been launched against the assessee from/after re- assessment order passed by the AO u/s.153A of the Act (after search) and not from the original assessment

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].

271(1)(c) of the Act and issued show-cause notice dated 15.03.2012. The assessee filed its reply dated 21.03.2012 by stating that the penalty proceedings may be dropped. The content of the assessee’s reply is reproduced as under: In the return of income filed for the A.Y.2000-01 the assessee-company had claimed exemption u/s

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. DCIT, CENT CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

exempt under taxation in its return claiming it to be agriculture. The Assessing officer concluded that it was a capital asset and assessed the capital gain. However, neither in the body of the Assessment order or in the so called penalty show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer recorded whether the penalty proceeding u/s 271

SREE NAVALADIAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

exempt under taxation in its return claiming it to be agriculture. The Assessing officer concluded that it was a capital asset and assessed the capital gain. However, neither in the body of the Assessment order or in the so called penalty show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer recorded whether the penalty proceeding u/s 271

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,SALEM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

exempt under taxation in its return claiming it to be agriculture. The Assessing officer concluded that it was a capital asset and assessed the capital gain. However, neither in the body of the Assessment order or in the so called penalty show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer recorded whether the penalty proceeding u/s 271

SREENAVALADIAN FINANCE,SALEM vs. DCIT,CENTRALCIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

exempt under taxation in its return claiming it to be agriculture. The Assessing officer concluded that it was a capital asset and assessed the capital gain. However, neither in the body of the Assessment order or in the so called penalty show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer recorded whether the penalty proceeding u/s 271

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-.\nConsequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by\nthe

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

penalty of Rs.7,34,291/-u/s 271(1) by taking the above income assessed of Rs. 23,76,348/-. ITA Nos.2740 to 2743 /Chny/2024 11 Firstly, the appellant submits that it has furnished all the particulars of income in the return of income and claimed exemption

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

penalty of Rs.7,34,291/-u/s 271(1) by taking the above income assessed of Rs. 23,76,348/-. ITA Nos.2740 to 2743 /Chny/2024 11 Firstly, the appellant submits that it has furnished all the particulars of income in the return of income and claimed exemption

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

penalty of Rs.7,34,291/-u/s 271(1) by taking the above income assessed of Rs. 23,76,348/-. ITA Nos.2740 to 2743 /Chny/2024 11 Firstly, the appellant submits that it has furnished all the particulars of income in the return of income and claimed exemption

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPOLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

penalty of Rs.7,34,291/-u/s 271(1) by taking the above income assessed of Rs. 23,76,348/-. ITA Nos.2740 to 2743 /Chny/2024 11 Firstly, the appellant submits that it has furnished all the particulars of income in the return of income and claimed 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

exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-.\nConsequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by\nthe

M/S THAMIZHVEL PT RAJAN TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO,EXEMPTIONS, WRD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

penalties u/s 271(1)(c) were levied by Ld. AO for these three years which are subject matter of ITA Nos.1096 to 1098/Chny/2023. 3. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The assessee submitted certain additional evidences which were subjected to remand proceedings. On the issue of exemption

M/S THAMIZHEL PTP RAJAN,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

penalties u/s 271(1)(c) were levied by Ld. AO for these three years which are subject matter of ITA Nos.1096 to 1098/Chny/2023. 3. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The assessee submitted certain additional evidences which were subjected to remand proceedings. On the issue of exemption