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

37,500/- offered pursuant to a\nstatement recorded during survey in the case of M/s. Life Line\nAuto Finance; and (ii) the balance sum of Rs.2,96,51,400/-\nvoluntarily offered by the assessee, unconnected with any\nincriminating material. Thus, it was submitted that the disclosure\nwas not attributable to any incriminating material found during\nsearch, and consequently Explanation

ST.JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

10%-30%. which does not match the 60% penalty levied here. The AO's intent to invoke Section 271AAB(1A) is evident from the penalty rate. b. Section 292B Cures the Defect • Section 292B of the Income Tax Act states that no notice shall be deemed invalid due to a mistake or defect if it is in substance and effect

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

10%-30%. which does not match the 60% penalty levied here. The AO's intent to invoke Section 271AAB(1A) is evident from the penalty rate. b. Section 292B Cures the Defect • Section 292B of the Income Tax Act states that no notice shall be deemed invalid due to a mistake or defect if it is in substance and effect

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

37,500/- offered pursuant to a\nstatement recorded during survey in the case of M/s. Life Line\nAuto Finance; and (ii) the balance sum of Rs.2,96,51,400/-\nvoluntarily offered by the assessee, unconnected with any\nincriminating material. Thus, it was submitted that the disclosure\nwas not attributable to any incriminating material found during\nsearch, and consequently Explanation

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

37,500/- offered pursuant to a\nstatement recorded during survey in the case of M/s. Life Line\nAuto Finance; and (ii) the balance sum of Rs.2,96,51,400/-\nvoluntarily offered by the assessee, unconnected with any\nincriminating material. Thus, it was submitted that the disclosure\nwas not attributable to any incriminating material found during\nsearch, and consequently Explanation

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

37,500/- offered pursuant to a\nstatement recorded during survey in the case of M/s. Life Line\nAuto Finance; and (ii) the balance sum of Rs.2,96,51,400/-\nvoluntarily offered by the assessee, unconnected with any\nincriminating material. Thus, it was submitted that the disclosure\nwas not attributable to any incriminating material found during\nsearch, and consequently Explanation

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

37,500/- offered pursuant to a\nstatement recorded during survey in the case of M/s. Life Line\nAuto Finance; and (ii) the balance sum of Rs.2,96,51,400/-\nvoluntarily offered by the assessee, unconnected with any\nincriminating material. Thus, it was submitted that the disclosure\nwas not attributable to any incriminating material found during\nsearch, and consequently 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

37,500/- offered pursuant to a\nstatement recorded during survey in the case of M/s. Life Line\nAuto Finance; and (ii) the balance sum of Rs.2,96,51,400/-\nvoluntarily offered by the assessee, unconnected with any\nincriminating material. Thus, it was submitted that the disclosure\nwas not attributable to any incriminating material found during\nsearch, and consequently Explanation

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 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking-off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition 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. Even

ST. JOSHEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

10%-30%. which does not match the 60% penalty levied\nhere. The AO's intent to invoke Section 271AAB(1A) is evident from\nthe penalty rate.\nb. Section 292B Cures the Defect\n• Section 292B of the Income Tax Act states that no notice shall be\ndeemed invalid due to a mistake or defect if it is in substance

ST. JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

10%-30%. which does not match the 60% penalty levied\nhere. The AO's intent to invoke Section 271AAB(1A) is evident from\nthe penalty rate.\nb. Section 292B Cures the Defect\n•\nSection 292B of the Income Tax Act states that no notice shall be\ndeemed invalid due to a mistake or defect if it is in substance

M/S ENRICE ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

10-1-2019] in paras 12 to 14 as under :— “12. Now, coming to another contention of the ld AR where he has challenged the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that penalty u/s 271AAB is mandatory in nature and there is no discretion with the Income tax authorities. It was submitted by the ld AR that in section 271AAB

R V R NAGESH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE VENGATTARAYALU RAJAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD - 22(4), TAMBARAM, TAMBARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was\na vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the\nassessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of\nmind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the\npenalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

M.ARUN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Chny/2021 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2008-09

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking- off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition 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. Even in the body

M/S ENRIA 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

271(1)(c) of the Act & Sec.270A of the Act, and wordings therein both provisions are similar and para materia to each other. Although, the term ‘tax evasion’ has been redefined by way of ‘under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income’ but it is synonymous to concealment of particular of income or furnishing

M/S ENRICE 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

271(1)(c) of the Act & Sec.270A of the Act, and wordings therein both provisions are similar and para materia to each other. Although, the term ‘tax evasion’ has been redefined by way of ‘under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income’ but it is synonymous to concealment of particular of income or furnishing

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

37,808/-claimed u/s 10A of the Act and thereby levied penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.30,71,950/-being 100% of the tax sought to\nbe evaded. Aggrieved, assessee is noted to have filed appeal before Ld\nCIT(A), who by passing the impugned order has confirmed the penalty.\nAggrieved, the assessee-company is before this Tribunal

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

37,808/-claimed u/s 10A of the Act and thereby levied penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.30,71,950/-being 100% of the tax sought to\nbe evaded. Aggrieved, assessee is noted to have filed appeal before Ld\nCIT(A), who by passing the impugned order has confirmed the penalty.\nAggrieved, the assessee-company is before this Tribunal