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

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. GHISULAI KOTHARI, CHENNAI

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271AAB of the IT Act, based on the admission of the assessee relevant to the search records/seized materials. 3. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of learned CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. 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 the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. 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 the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. 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 the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. 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 the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. 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 the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. 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 the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. 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 the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. 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 the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. KEWALCHAND KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

144. 3.2 During the course of search, excess jewellery and cash was found besides allegation of unaccounted investment in purchase of land and development of various properties. The excess jewellery was valued at Rs.75 Lacs. The cash amounting to Rs.110.83 Lacs was also found out from the group as a whole, out of which Rs.88.10 Lacs was seized. Considering

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SARDARMAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

144. 3.2 During the course of search, excess jewellery and cash was found besides allegation of unaccounted investment in purchase of land and development of various properties. The excess jewellery was valued at Rs.75 Lacs. The cash amounting to Rs.110.83 Lacs was also found out from the group as a whole, out of which Rs.88.10 Lacs was seized. Considering

ACIT CENTRLA CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SHANTILAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

144. 3.2 During the course of search, excess jewellery and cash was found besides allegation of unaccounted investment in purchase of land and development of various properties. The excess jewellery was valued at Rs.75 Lacs. The cash amounting to Rs.110.83 Lacs was also found out from the group as a whole, out of which Rs.88.10 Lacs was seized. Considering

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

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order of imposing

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order of imposing

M/S. ARCHANA FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order of imposing