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. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

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. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

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. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

144/-, a sum\nof Rs. 72,45,018/- is required to be sustained as unaccounted business income of\nthe appellant for AY 2017-18.\"\n6.2.5 While going through the above findings, it can be seen that the amount of Rs.\n72,45,018/- is determined by telescoping the drawings and income returned from the\nearlier years. At the outset

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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

144/-, a sum\nof Rs.72,45,018/- is required to be sustained as unaccounted business income of\nthe appellant for AY 2017-18.\"\n6.2.5 While going through the above findings, it can be seen that the amount of Rs.\n72,45,018/- is determined by telescoping the drawings and income returned from the\nearlier years. At the outset, the addition

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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

144/-, a sum\nof Rs.72,45,018/- is required to be sustained as unaccounted business income of\nthe appellant for AY 2017-18.\"\n6.2.5 While going through the above findings, it can be seen that the amount of Rs.\n72,45,018/- is determined by telescoping the drawings and income returned from the\nearlier years. At the outset, the addition

SS74 SALEM STEEL PLANT EMPLOYEE CO-OP STORES LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

144 was to be passed within a period of nine months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s 148 was issued. Accordingly, the reassessment order under section 153(2) ought to have been passed on or before 31.12.2019 whereas the same was passed on 19.09.2021. The Ld.AR submitted that through the order u/s. 147 dated

SS74 SALEM STEEL PLANT EMPLOYEE CO-OP STORES LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

144 was to be passed within a period of nine months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s 148 was issued. Accordingly, the reassessment order under section 153(2) ought to have been passed on or before 31.12.2019 whereas the same was passed on 19.09.2021. The Ld.AR submitted that through the order u/s. 147 dated

SS74 SALEM STEEL PLANT EMPLOYEE CO-OP STORES LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

144 was to be passed within a period of nine months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s 148 was issued. Accordingly, the reassessment order under section 153(2) ought to have been passed on or before 31.12.2019 whereas the same was passed on 19.09.2021. The Ld.AR submitted that through the order u/s. 147 dated

SS74 SALEM STEEL PLANT EMPLOYEE CO-OP STORES LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

144 was to be passed within a period of nine months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s 148 was issued. Accordingly, the reassessment order under section 153(2) ought to have been passed on or before 31.12.2019 whereas the same was passed on 19.09.2021. The Ld.AR submitted that through the order u/s. 147 dated

ANWAR SULTHAN AKBAR ALI,TIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, NCW-19(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.460 & 461/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anwar Sulthan Akbar Ali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5131, Mosque Road, Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Ayapakkam, Tiruvallur 600 077. Chennai. [Pan:Aonpa4265J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 20.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up Appeal In Ita No. 460/Chny/2025 For Adjudication Of Confirmation Of Quantum Addition.

144 rws 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by adding a sum of Rs.2,84,17,463/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits us 69A and also imposed penalty u/s 271(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the orders, an appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

ANWAR SULTHAN AKBAR ALI,TIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, NCW-19(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.460 & 461/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anwar Sulthan Akbar Ali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5131, Mosque Road, Non Corporate Ward 19(3), Ayapakkam, Tiruvallur 600 077. Chennai. [Pan:Aonpa4265J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Krishna Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 20.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up Appeal In Ita No. 460/Chny/2025 For Adjudication Of Confirmation Of Quantum Addition.

144 rws 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by adding a sum of Rs.2,84,17,463/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits us 69A and also imposed penalty u/s 271(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the orders, an appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

SARVESWARAN DEEPA,KANCHIPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 22(6), TAMBARAM, TAMBARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

144 of the Act on 22.03.2022, wherein the total income\nof the assessee was assessed at Rs.11,21,440/-. In the said assessment order,\nthe AO also recorded satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.\n271(1)(b) of the Act, on account of the assessee's failure to comply with the\nnotices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. Accordingly

THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY'S SOCIETY,MADURAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, The Immaculate Heart Of V. Exemptions Ward, Mary’S Society, Madurai. Arul Malar Convent, No.1, K.K. Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. [Pan:Aaatt-7531-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

144 of the Act for levying penalty. Since the assessee trust has not participated in the penalty proceedings, the exparte order has been passed by the AO on 28/09/2022 by levying :-3-: ITA. Nos: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 minimum penalty (100% of tax) of Rs.31,83,771/- U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Further, the notice under section

THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY'S SOCIETY,MADURAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, The Immaculate Heart Of V. Exemptions Ward, Mary’S Society, Madurai. Arul Malar Convent, No.1, K.K. Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. [Pan:Aaatt-7531-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

144 of the Act for levying penalty. Since the assessee trust has not participated in the penalty proceedings, the exparte order has been passed by the AO on 28/09/2022 by levying :-3-: ITA. Nos: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 minimum penalty (100% of tax) of Rs.31,83,771/- U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Further, the notice under section

THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY'S SOCIETY,MADURAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble Judicial Membe & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, The Immaculate Heart Of V. Exemptions Ward, Mary’S Society, Madurai. Arul Malar Convent, No.1, K.K. Nagar, Madurai – 625 020. [Pan:Aaatt-7531-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

144 of the Act for levying penalty. Since the assessee trust has not participated in the penalty proceedings, the exparte order has been passed by the AO on 28/09/2022 by levying :-3-: ITA. Nos: 968, 969 & 970/Chny/2024 minimum penalty (100% of tax) of Rs.31,83,771/- U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Further, the notice under section

POWER SECURITY CORP. PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-5(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1947/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Power Security Corp Private V. Corporate Ward 5(2), Ltd., Chennai. New No.18, Old No.22, Lake Area, 1St Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagcp 2703C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

271(1)(c) are completely different from penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act. The case laws which directing to cancel the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be applied ipso facto to the situations of the cases falling u/s 270A of the Act. The circumstances & conditions under which penalty cannot be imposed u/s 270A are clearly specified for the situations

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\n\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\"\n\n4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn

MOHAMED AKBAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-10(3), CHENNAI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymohamed Akbar, I.T.O., 2/2 1St St., Gf, Apt No. 2, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 10(3), Jamalia Perambur High Road, Chennai. Chennai-12 Pan No. Afepa 3815 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

144 of the Act and denied the exemption under Section 54 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee under the head capital gains. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act for concealment of income. Subsequently, the penalty order under Section 271