ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 271D/E, he AO had no satisfaction to Initiate any penalty. 3.1 In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in 98 ITD 200. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below: "21. Another factor that deserves consideration is the requirement of recording of satisfaction in the course

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 271D/E, he AO had no satisfaction to Initiate any penalty. 3.1 In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in 98 ITD 200. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below: "21. Another factor that deserves consideration is the requirement of recording of satisfaction in the course

DAKSHINAMOORTHY KUMARESAN,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

124 taxmann.com 363\n(Madras) and prayed for deletion of penalty.\n5.\nOn the other hand, Id. Departmental Representative submitted that when\nAssessing Officer had recorded in assessment order particulars of concealed\nincome/undisclosed income of assessee and on that basis initiated penalty\nproceeding under section 271(1)(c), then consequential notice under section 274\nissued by Assessing Officer to assessee

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

Section 271 would apply to the case of the assessee which provide for penalty if the assessee is not able to substantiate the claim made. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR, at the outset, drew our attention to legal ground Nos. 1 & 2 in which the assessee submit that the show-cause notice

PANJURAJAN GANESAN,,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT, CC - 2,, MADURAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.278/Chny/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Panjurajan Ganesan Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.74A, Velayutham Road, Corporate Circle-2, Sivakasi, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 123. [Pan:Abypg3315R] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G. Latchana, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act for ‘have concealed the particulars of your income or ….furnished inaccurate particulars of such income’. The ld. AR further contended that order imposing penalty has to be made only on ground of which penalty proceedings has been initiated. The ld. counsel further contended that ‘concealment of income’ and ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

124 taxmann.com 249 (SC), though passed in the context of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. But the requirement of law as given in section 271(1) & 270A(1) of the Act is noted to be pari-materia. As far as Section 271(1) is concerned, the AO to record ‘satisfaction’ to levy penalty whereas in section

PRADEEP DAYANAND KOTHARI ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, TAX CORPORATE CRICLE 4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 V. Shri Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, The Dy. Commissioner – Kothari Buildings, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 114, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Corporate Circle-4(2), Chennai-600 034. Chennai.

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 31.03.2013 for both AY 2006-07 & ITA Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 (AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08) Pradeep Dayanand Kothari :: 3 :: AY 2007-08 by virtue which the AO gave notice to the assessee ‘as to why’ the penalty should not be levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act or not? On perusal

PRADEEP DAYANAND KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 V. Shri Pradeep Dayanand Kothari, The Dy. Commissioner – Kothari Buildings, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 114, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Corporate Circle-4(2), Chennai-600 034. Chennai.

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 31.03.2013 for both AY 2006-07 & ITA Nos.26 & 27/Chny/2024 (AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08) Pradeep Dayanand Kothari :: 3 :: AY 2007-08 by virtue which the AO gave notice to the assessee ‘as to why’ the penalty should not be levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act or not? On perusal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. S. DEEPALAKSHMI, PANRUTI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:991/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Ms. S. Deepalakshmi, Income Tax, Vs. No.190, Annai Indira Gandhi Central Circle -2(2), Salai, Chennai. Panruti – 607 108. Pan: Awtpd 8317Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Smt. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""यथ"क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai - 19 Dated 13.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore For The Assessment Year 2016-17 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 31.12.2018. 2. The Sole Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied By Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.51,18,200/- For The Reason That There Is No Specific Charge Framed While Initiating Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act I.E., Whether Assessee Has Concealed The Particulars Of Income Or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. While completing the assessment, the AO had initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.51,80,200/- being 100% of the tax on the alleged concealed trading income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. Before CIT(A), the assessee made submission that the levy

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

CARIS PURE PROCESSING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORP WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1453, 1454 & 1455/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Caris Pure Processing Company The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, V. Income Tax, No.23-C, Kohinoor Complex, Corporate Ward -1(1), Vettuvankeni, Chennai. Injambakkam, East Coast Road, Chennai – 600 115. [Pan: Aafcc-2170-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

124/-. The scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.11.2017 with an addition of Rs.16,09,074/- towards disallowance of interest on TDS and loss assessed at Rs.2,77,44,770/-. Subsequently, as per the details available on record, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.2

CARIS PURE PROCESSING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1453, 1454 & 1455/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Caris Pure Processing Company The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, V. Income Tax, No.23-C, Kohinoor Complex, Corporate Ward -1(1), Vettuvankeni, Chennai. Injambakkam, East Coast Road, Chennai – 600 115. [Pan: Aafcc-2170-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

124/-. The scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.11.2017 with an addition of Rs.16,09,074/- towards disallowance of interest on TDS and loss assessed at Rs.2,77,44,770/-. Subsequently, as per the details available on record, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.2

CARIS PURE PROCESSING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORP CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1453, 1454 & 1455/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Caris Pure Processing Company The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, V. Income Tax, No.23-C, Kohinoor Complex, Corporate Ward -1(1), Vettuvankeni, Chennai. Injambakkam, East Coast Road, Chennai – 600 115. [Pan: Aafcc-2170-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

124/-. The scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.11.2017 with an addition of Rs.16,09,074/- towards disallowance of interest on TDS and loss assessed at Rs.2,77,44,770/-. Subsequently, as per the details available on record, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.2

MOHAMMED NASRUDEEN,PUDHUKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD 3, CUDDALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.645/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. Shri Mohammed Nasrudeen, The Income Tax Officer, 871-B, South Street, Ammapatinam, Ward-3, Manamelgudi, Cuddalore. Pudhukotai District-614 617. [Pan: Azwpm 6686 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 271 of the Act is to record his satisfaction in the course of assessment proceedings that any Mohammed Nasrudeen :: 4 :: person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, then the AO has to issue proper notice making it clear the specific fault committed by assessee and give proper opportunity u/s

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENAI vs. C.VIJAYA BASKAR, PUDUKOTTAI

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

penalties were levied \naccordingly. The Ld. CIT(A) held that this quantity could be construed to \n\n19\n\nbe excess quantity of rough stone & malaimann and accordingly, \ndirected Ld. AO to re-work the undisclosed sales in the hands of the \nassessee. No order was passed in the case of Shri B Kubendran and \naccordingly, the stand

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENAI vs. C.VIJAYA BASKAR, PUDUKOTTAI

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

penalties were levied accordingly. The Ld. CIT(A) held that this quantity could be construed to be excess quantity of rough stone & malaimann and accordingly, directed Ld. AO to re-work the undisclosed sales in the hands of the assessee. No order was passed in the case of Shri B Kubendran and accordingly, the stand of Ld. AO was confirmed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENAI vs. C.VIJAYA BASKAR, PUDUKOTTAI

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

penalties were levied \naccordingly. The Ld. CIT(A) held that this quantity could be construed to \nbe excess quantity of rough stone & malaimann and accordingly, \ndirected Ld. AO to re-work the undisclosed sales in the hands of the \nassessee. No order was passed in the case of Shri B Kubendran and \naccordingly, the stand of Ld. AO was confirmed