M/S.REDINGTON DISTRIBUTORS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income ITA Nos.889 to 894/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17) M/s. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd. :: 2 :: Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) on the common addition(s) made on account of the profits of the assessee attributed to be taxed in India. With the consent of both

M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT , INTL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income ITA Nos.889 to 894/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17) M/s. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd. :: 2 :: Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) on the common addition(s) made on account of the profits of the assessee attributed to be taxed in India. With the consent of both

M/S.REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTLTAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income ITA Nos.889 to 894/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17) M/s. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd. :: 2 :: Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) on the common addition(s) made on account of the profits of the assessee attributed to be taxed in India. With the consent of both

M/S.REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTLTAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income ITA Nos.889 to 894/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17) M/s. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd. :: 2 :: Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) on the common addition(s) made on account of the profits of the assessee attributed to be taxed in India. With the consent of both

M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

penalty which was levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same facts and circumstances and accordingly claimed that the impugned issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities and didn’t agree that the lis in question was covered

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

penalty which was levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same facts and circumstances and accordingly claimed that the impugned issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities and didn’t agree that the lis in question was covered

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

penalty which was levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same facts and circumstances and accordingly claimed that the impugned issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities and didn’t agree that the lis in question was covered

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. JOHNSON LIFTS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Chny/2024 & Ita No.48/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18

penalty proceedings u.s. 271(1)(C) of the Act.7. AO also levied interest of Rs.4 49,310 u.s. 234 A of the Act although the assessee filed its original return before the due date." ITA No.47/Chny/2024 & ITA No.48/Chny/2024 :- 8 -: 4.0 The CIT(A) / NFAC vide its order dated 30.10.2023(Supra) deleted the addition made by the AO. 5.0 Ground No.1

M.R.PRASAD,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

penalty under section 271(1) ( c) Income-tax Act, even while giving opportunity to the petitioner in proceedings dated February 10, 2005, to submit their objections on or before February, 2005, with regard to reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2001-01 and before deciding the matter on the merits. The notices of reassessment as well as consequential

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

penalty under section 271(1) ( c) Income-tax Act, even while giving opportunity to the petitioner in proceedings dated February 10, 2005, to submit their objections on or before February, 2005, with regard to reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2001-01 and before deciding the matter on the merits. The notices of reassessment as well as consequential

PRAKASH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

penalty under section 271(1) ( c) Income-tax Act, even while giving opportunity to the petitioner in proceedings dated February 10, 2005, to submit their objections on or before February, 2005, with regard to reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2001-01 and before deciding the matter on the merits. The notices of reassessment as well as consequential

M.R.PRASAD,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

penalty under section 271(1) ( c) Income-tax Act, even while giving opportunity to the petitioner in proceedings dated February 10, 2005, to submit their objections on or before February, 2005, with regard to reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2001-01 and before deciding the matter on the merits. The notices of reassessment as well as consequential

PRAKASH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

penalty under section 271(1) ( c) Income-tax Act, even while giving opportunity to the petitioner in proceedings dated February 10, 2005, to submit their objections on or before February, 2005, with regard to reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2001-01 and before deciding the matter on the merits. The notices of reassessment as well as consequential

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

penalty under section 271(1) ( c) Income-tax Act, even while giving opportunity to the petitioner in proceedings dated February 10, 2005, to submit their objections on or before February, 2005, with regard to reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2001-01 and before deciding the matter on the merits. The notices of reassessment as well as consequential

BANNARIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the\ncase of M/s Chettinadu Lignite Transport Service Private Limited, at the above\nmentioned address. The sworn statement was deposed before, Shri. S.\nBharathi, IRS, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2,\nCoimbatore.\nITA Nos.3310 to 3314/Chny/2024\n(AYs 2017-18 to 2021-22)\nITA Nos.3353 & 3354 to 3358/Chny/2024

BANNARIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

u/s 131 of the Act and his statement \nwas recorded on 26.07.2021. In this statement, he was particularly \ninterrogated regarding the impugned notings which he had originally \nalleged to relate to ‘Bannari Amman Group’ / ‘Bannari Amman Sugars’ / \n‘Bannari Amman Educational Trust’ and he was required to specifically \n\nITA Nos.3310 to 3314/Chny/2024