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)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

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

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

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

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

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

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

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

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

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

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

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

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

P. KALAISELVI ,POLUR vs. ACIT , VELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.984/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ms.Palani Kalai Selvi, The Asst. Commissioner – No.2A, Old No.7, Of Income Tax, Abdul Sukkur St., Circle-1, Polur-606 608. Vellore. [Pan: Bcapk 5385 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2023

House Property. The assessee has filed the copy of the Auditor's report in Form 3CB and 3CD for the audited books as per the provisions of Sec 44 AB of the I.T.Act, 1961. The assessee has declared a total turnover of Rs.17,48,30,092/-, gross profit of Rs.2,03,81,252/- @ 11.66 % and net profit of Rs.69

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

house property' and thereby disallowing exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

house only since assessment year 2015-16. It is noticed that AO has allowed investment made in flat purchased from Hiranandani realtors Pvt Ltd as deduction being highest of two investments made by appellant in residential property. Investment made by appellant in case of flat with Appasamy real estate Ltd was only Rs. 77,58,400/- which was ignored

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

house only since assessment year 2015-16. It is noticed that AO has allowed investment made in flat purchased from Hiranandani realtors Pvt Ltd as deduction being highest of two investments made by appellant in residential property. Investment made by appellant in case of flat with Appasamy real estate Ltd was only Rs. 77,58,400/- which was ignored

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

house property'\nand thereby disallowing exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-.\nConsequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

house property'\nand thereby disallowing exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-.\nConsequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were

ACHALA PUNJA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) be\ndeleted and justice rendered.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed her\nreturn of income for the A.Y.2014-15 u/s.139(1) of the Act on 30.07.2014,\ndeclaring a total income of Rs.49,02,590/-. In the said return, the assessee\nclaimed exemption u/s.54 of the Act amounting to Rs.6

SHRI S MANOHARAN ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 , COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.616 To 619/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Mr.S.Manoharan, V. The Dy. Commissioner- G-3, Saratha Krupa Appt., Of Income Tax, No.55 (Old 47), Naidu Road, Central Circle-2, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 012. [Pan:Aedpm 7539 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.N. Arjunraj, Ca For Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.02.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) for concealment of income was deleted by Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals where addition was made on estimation on total turnover or gross profit of the business. In the appellant's case the addition was made under the head "income form, house property

SHRI S MANOHARAN ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 , COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.616 To 619/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Mr.S.Manoharan, V. The Dy. Commissioner- G-3, Saratha Krupa Appt., Of Income Tax, No.55 (Old 47), Naidu Road, Central Circle-2, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 012. [Pan:Aedpm 7539 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.N. Arjunraj, Ca For Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.02.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) for concealment of income was deleted by Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals where addition was made on estimation on total turnover or gross profit of the business. In the appellant's case the addition was made under the head "income form, house property

SHRI S MANOHARAN ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 , COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.616 To 619/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Mr.S.Manoharan, V. The Dy. Commissioner- G-3, Saratha Krupa Appt., Of Income Tax, No.55 (Old 47), Naidu Road, Central Circle-2, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 012. [Pan:Aedpm 7539 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.N. Arjunraj, Ca For Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.02.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) for concealment of income was deleted by Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals where addition was made on estimation on total turnover or gross profit of the business. In the appellant's case the addition was made under the head "income form, house property