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

9) of section 270A are satisfied. Therefore, the show-cause notice\nproposing penalty is found to be vague and does not meet the requirement\nof law to legally impose penalty. Consequently, the levy of penalty is\nfragile in the eyes of law and is held to be ab initio bad in law.”\n74.\nRespectfully following the precedent laid down

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

9) of section 270A are satisfied. Therefore, the show-cause notice\nproposing penalty is found to be vague and does not meet the requirement\nof law to legally impose penalty. Consequently, the levy of penalty is\nfragile in the eyes of law and is held to be ab initio bad in law.\"\n74. Respectfully following the precedent laid down

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

9) of section 270A are satisfied. Therefore, the show-cause notice\nproposing penalty is found to be vague and does not meet the requirement\nof law to legally impose penalty. Consequently, the levy of penalty is\nfragile in the eyes of law and is held to be ab initio bad in law.\"\n74.\nRespectfully following the precedent laid down

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

9) of section 270A are satisfied. Therefore, the show-cause notice\nproposing penalty is found to be vague and does not meet the requirement\nof law to legally impose penalty. Consequently, the levy of penalty is\nfragile in the eyes of law and is held to be ab initio bad in law.\"\n74.\nRespectfully following the precedent laid down

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 270A of the Act d) No prejudice Caused to the assessee The Ld.DR submitted that prejudice has been caused to the assessee, as the assessee was given opportunity of being heard. Our Submission When the impugned penalty notice is invalid, the entire proceedings gets vitiated

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 270A of the Act d) No prejudice Caused to the assessee The Ld.DR submitted that prejudice has been caused to the assessee, as the assessee was given opportunity of being heard. Our Submission When the impugned penalty notice is invalid, the entire proceedings gets vitiated

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(1)(c) was issued to the assessee on 10.03.2014 which read as under: - “Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2009-10, it appears to me that you:- *have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me within of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given under Section

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

9: ERRONEOUS COMPUTATION OF\nUNDISCLOSED INCOME\n:: 31 ::\n1. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the Ld. AO erred in\ncomputing undisclosed income as INR 1,26,75,000/- blindly relying on the\nassessment order dated 29-09-2021, without considering the rectification\npetition fled u/s 154 of the Act by the appellation towards rectification of\nmistakes apparent

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

u/s 132 of the Act,\nunearthed unaccounted cash transactions, which warrants penalty of 60%.\nInvalidating the notice on technical issue, would defeat the intent of the\nlegislature.\ne) Holistic Interpretation of the Notice\nThe Ld. DR submitted that the notice must be read in conjunction with the\nassessment order, penalty order and search proceedings.\nf) Assessee's Conduct Warrants Penalty

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].

9. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has raised following grounds before the ld. CIT(A): 4. Aggrieved on the penalty order, the appellant preferred this appeal raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the ld. AO is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case

MANGAL & MANGAL,TRICHY vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2207/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

9. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. In order to decide the issue of penalty levied u/s. 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act, it is necessary to understand provisions of section 271AAB and relevant explanation provided thereto to define the meaning of undisclosed income. The relevant provisions

FUTURE GAMING AND HOTEL SERVICES P LTD,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.950/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. Future Gaming & Hotel Acit बनाम/ Services Private Limited Central Circle-2, 54, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore. Vs. Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore-641 029. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-9751-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri S. Sridhar & N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Cit-Dr A/W Ms. Anitha (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

9. On a perusal of the provisions of section 271AAB, it is evident that the Section 271AAB is self-contained. There can be no doubt that there is no discretion with the AO as the parameters by which the AO or the tax authorities are bound in regard to the rate of penalty and the circumstances on the basis

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)

139", Similarly, the language use in Section 156 which is reproduced as under: "When any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form….. 2. As can be seen from the above illustrations

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)

139", Similarly, the language use in Section 156 which is reproduced as under: "When any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form….. 2. As can be seen from the above illustrations

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

9. There is no quarrel on the argument made before us that Ld. AO is required to initiate penalty proceedings in the assessment order and mere expressing the intention to initiate penalty against the assessee in the body of assessment order would be sufficient compliance of law. However, the case of the assessee rest on the footing that show- cause

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

9) of 1922 Act to include a HUF and a local authority. Unless a firm\ncan be considered as a 'person', section 17(1) of the 1922 Act cannot govern\nthe assessment of the assessee-firm. In the 1961 Act the expression 'person' is\ndefined differently. It is a matter for consideration whether the definition\ncontained in section

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

9 ::\nITA Nos.2741 to 2743/Chny/2025\n(AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11)\nM/s. RR Industries Ltd.\nnotice to the assessee as to “why an order imposing a penalty on you\nshould not be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act?” On perusal of the SCN\ndated 31.03.2015 [for all the captioned AYs], we note that both the faults\nspecified

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

9) of 1922 Act to include a HUF and a local authority. Unless a firm\ncan be considered as a 'person', section 17(1) of the 1922 Act cannot govern\nthe assessment of the assessee-firm. In the 1961 Act the expression 'person' is\ndefined differently. It is a matter for consideration whether the definition\ncontained in section