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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under 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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

11,89,533/- levied by the\nAO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16.\n42.\nSince we have affirmed the order of the CIT(A) on multiple\nsubstantive grounds, we are of the considered view that the\ntechnical issue relating to the issuance of the show cause notice\nu/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, subsequent

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under 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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

11 :: • Section 270A(7) prescribes a penalty of 50% of the tax payable on income under-reported under Section 270A(2), while Section 270A(8) imposes a 200% penalty for misreporting under Section 270A(3). • The AD levied a 50% penalty, which unequivocally signal with under- reporting. Had the AO intended to penalize for misreporting (e.g., suppression of facts

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

11 :: • Section 270A(7) prescribes a penalty of 50% of the tax payable on income under-reported under Section 270A(2), while Section 270A(8) imposes a 200% penalty for misreporting under Section 270A(3). • The AD levied a 50% penalty, which unequivocally signal with under- reporting. Had the AO intended to penalize for misreporting (e.g., suppression of facts

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 Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. " In view of aforesaid facts and findings given thereon and respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case (referred to supra

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 Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. " In view of aforesaid facts and findings given thereon and respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case (referred to supra

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 Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. " In view of aforesaid facts and findings given thereon and respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case (referred to supra

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 Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. " In view of aforesaid facts and findings given thereon and respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case (referred to supra

M/S.ENRICA 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(l)(c). The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that certain additions have been made in the assessment proceedings. 10. The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that penalty cannot be levied merely because an amount taxed as income

M/S ENRICA 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(l)(c). The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that certain additions have been made in the assessment proceedings. 10. The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that penalty cannot be levied merely because an amount taxed as income

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

D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.10,36,114/- for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore [CIT(A)] on 31-03-2017 in the matter

DAKSHINAMOORTHY KUMARESAN,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 147 of the Act dated 25.05.2023, the Id.\nAssessing Officer stated that penalty proceedings u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act is\ninitiated separately as it is evidenced that the assessee has 'concealed his\nparticulars of income' by not filing his return of income voluntarily for A.Y. 2016-\n2017 as required u/s.139(1) of the Act.\n7. Penalty is imposed

MUTHURATHINAM,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), TIRUPPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2656/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Muthurathinam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27/29, Kumarappapuram, Ward 1(2) 1St Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Avypm 0862D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate By Virtual. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Penalty Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issue Sought To Be Urged By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] By Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ In Short) In Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Has Satisfied That Penalty Proceeding Is Being Initiated Separately For “Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income” Where As Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 04.01.2022 Levied Penalty For “Concealment Of Income”, Although In The Notice Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1) (C), The Ao Has Marked The Specified Limb As “That You Have Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income”.

D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This penalty appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), DELHI [CIT(A)] dated 21.08.2024 for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The issue sought to be urged by the assessee in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) was justified in upholding

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai dated 30.03.2015 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by one day in filing

DR. VEDAMURTHY MAYA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

271 (1) If the Assessing Officer …………. in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person – (a) ………. (b) has failed to comply with a notice …………………… under sub-section (1) of section 142 or (c) ………… (d)………… he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty,- (i) …………. (ii) in the cases referred to in clause