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

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that\nwhere surrender of income not being voluntary in nature, authorities\nbelow were justified in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c).\n5.\nFor these grounds and any other ground including amendment of\ngrounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal\nproceedings, the order of learned

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

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that\nwhere surrender of income not being voluntary in nature, authorities\nbelow were justified in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c).\n5. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of\ngrounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal\nproceedings, the order of learned

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

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that\nwhere surrender of income not being voluntary in nature, authorities\nbelow were justified in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c).\n5.\nFor these grounds and any other ground including amendment of\ngrounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings,\nthe order of learned

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

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that\nwhere surrender of income not being voluntary in nature, authorities\nbelow were justified in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c).\n5. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of\ngrounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal\nproceedings, the order of learned

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

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that\nwhere surrender of income not being voluntary in nature, authorities\nbelow were justified in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c).\n5. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of\ngrounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal\nproceedings, the order of learned

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

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that\nwhere surrender of income not being voluntary in nature, authorities\nbelow were justified in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c).\n5. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of\ngrounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal\nproceedings, the order of learned

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

271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 271AAB of the Act\nFurther, the Ld.DR reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court\nin the case of CIT Vs Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) do not death with\nthe section 292B of the Act at all.\nFurther, this decision only

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

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)

Section 271(1B) the tax payer cannot take a shelter that he was not aware why the Penalty proceedings have been initiated or was prevented from duly presenting the appellants' defense on the charge made. 6. The Ld.DR is noted to have opposed the contention of the Ld.AR and inte-alia has submitted that the Hon’ble Madras High Court

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)

Section 271(1B) the tax payer cannot take a shelter that he was not aware why the Penalty proceedings have been initiated or was prevented from duly presenting the appellants' defense on the charge made. 6. The Ld.DR is noted to have opposed the contention of the Ld.AR and inte-alia has submitted that the Hon’ble Madras High Court

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

10-02-2010 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If, you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the above

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