ADVENT COMPUTER SERVICES LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.222/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. Advent Computer Services Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O.M/S. Anil Nair Associates Income Tax, Casa Blanca, 1St Floor,11,Casa Major Company Ward-1(1), Road. Egmore, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 008. Pan:Aacea 0326L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

long term capital gain in the return of income for the year by inadvertent mistake and hence the same cannot be considered as concealment of income to levy penalty u/s. 271

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

long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or 67[two years.] after the date on which the transfer took place 66purchased, or has within a period of three years. after that date 68 [constructed, one residential house

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

long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or 67[two years.] after the date on which the transfer took place 66purchased, or has within a period of three years. after that date 68 [constructed, one residential house

PRAMILA PATEL,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1827/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pramila Patel, No.27, Gnt Road, Non Corporate Ward 10(3) Puzhal, Chennai. Chennai 600 066. [Pan Aeipp 1044H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Long Term Capital Gains which are exempt under section 10(38) of the IT Act. The appellant has claimed that the purchases were done on 18/612007 and the sale was done on 13/3/2009, 20/3/2009 and 25/3/2009. 5.10. As per the de-mat statements, the shares were credited to the appellant’s account only on 6/3/2009, 12/3/2009 and 19/3/2009

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2,, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. DHANDAYUTHAPANI FOUNDRY PVT. LTD.,, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.698/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Dhandayuthapani Foundry Corporate Circle-2 Pvt.Ltd. Coimbatore. Door No.1/4, Vetrivel Layout Opp. To Dpf Electricals, Vilankurichi Post Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore-641 035. Pan: Aaacd 6151G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act,l96l which is worked out as under will meet the ends of justice in the assessee’s case. Tax sought to be evaded on the Undisclosed Long Term Capital Gains

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

Long Term Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

DCIT, CC-3 (2),, CHENNAI vs. VICOANS INFRSTRUCTURE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3170/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 V. The Dy. Commissioner Of- M/S.Vicoans Infrastructure Income Tax, Environmental Engineering Corporate Circle-3(2), Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. No.39, 1St Cross Street, West Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. [Pan:Aaccv 4087 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the long term Capital gain. On an appeal, CIT(A)'s reduced the long-term capital gain escaping assessment to Rs.6.39 crores. Both the assessee and the Department accepted the CIT(A)'s order and thus the assessment becoming final. Accordingly, the penalty

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

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

Long Term Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

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

Long Term Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

long term capital gains arising on sale of land at Pallangi Village, was not disclosed in the original return of income or in the return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s.153C of the Act. The assessee could not prove that capital gains had arisen prior to 01.04.1999. In the case of alleged unexplained investments in land

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

long term capital gains arising on sale of land at Pallangi Village, was not disclosed in the original return of income or in the return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s.153C of the Act. The assessee could not prove that capital gains had arisen prior to 01.04.1999. In the case of alleged unexplained investments in land