MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

271(1) (c) of the Act was also legal. \" (p. 787)\n7. Addl. CIT v. Badri Prasad Kashi Prasad [1993] 200 ITR 206 (All.) \"Held, that the\nlevy of penalty was based on the addition to income made by the Income-tax\nOfficer. The addition was deleted by the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal was justified\nin cancelling the penalty

MERCY EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2231/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mercy Education Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Arcot Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aactm 6190M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

271(1)(c) of the Act. In case the reassessment proceedings have been completed without proper jurisdiction entrusted upon the Assessing Officer, then the consequent penalty proceedings are also affected as basic issue of conferment of jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer is under challenge. Accordingly, we hold so.” 21. In the context of appeal against penalty order passed u/s.271D

SUJATHA HARIHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed

148A of the Act dated 27.03.2023 has been passed after CBDT\nNotification dated 29.03.2022. Hence, the aforesaid CBDT Notification\ndated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case.\n7. The Hon'ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs\nITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT

ANTHONYMUTHU UDAYAR XAVIER,SIVAGANGA vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARAIKUDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:1943/Chny/2024 धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15 Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Income Tax Officer, 78 Mgr Salai, Vs. Ward-1 Soodamanipuram, Karaikudi. Karaikudi, Sivaganga – 630 002. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaapx-3145-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

148A of the Act kicks in. Since the revenue in the instant case had not followed any of the requirements of the new regime and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal reported in 444 ITR 1(SC), the reassessment proceedings need to be quashed for invalid assumption

SUJATHA HARIHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed

148A of the Act dated 27.03.2023 has been passed after CBDT\nNotification dated 29.03.2022. Hence, the aforesaid CBDT Notification\ndated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case.\n7. The Hon'ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs\nITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT

THOMAS VICTOR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 19(6), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

271(1)(c) of the Act. In case the re- assessment proceedings have been completed without proper jurisdiction entrusted upon the Assessing Officer, then the consequent penalty proceedings are also affected as basic issue of conferment of jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer is under challenge. Accordingly, we hold so.” 21. In the context of appeal against penalty order passed u/s.271D

KGN FITNESS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-4(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

section 151A of the Act, making it mandatory for the issuance of notice u/s.148A(b), 148A(d) as well as 148 of the Act by the Faceless Mechanism, the impugned notices especially issued u/s.148 dated 31.03.2022 is found to be invalid and bad in law, since it has been issued contrary to law and is against the ‘Rule

KGN FITNESS & DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-4(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

section 151A of the Act, making it mandatory for the issuance of notice u/s.148A(b), 148A(d) as well as 148 of the Act by the Faceless Mechanism, the impugned notices especially issued u/s.148 dated 31.03.2022 is found to be invalid and bad in law, since it has been issued contrary to law and is against the ‘Rule

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI O. PANNEERSELVAM, CHENNAI

In the result, the cross-objections stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri O. Panneerselvam बनाम Central Circle-2(4), No.70, South Agraharam, / Vs. Chennai. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.5/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.581/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. Cross Objection No.6/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.582/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri O. Panneerselvam Dcit बनाम No.70, South Agraharam, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nanda Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-04-2024

271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue for concealment of particulars of his income. 4.16 The assessment for AY 2017-18 has been framed on similar lines. The Ld. AO made addition for alleged payments made by the firm to the assessee. The Ld. AO made another addition of undisclosed income. The same was on the basis

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI O. PANNEERSELVAM, CHENNAI

In the result, the cross-objections stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri O. Panneerselvam बनाम Central Circle-2(4), No.70, South Agraharam, / Vs. Chennai. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.5/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.581/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. Cross Objection No.6/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.582/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri O. Panneerselvam Dcit बनाम No.70, South Agraharam, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nanda Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-04-2024

271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue for concealment of particulars of his income. 4.16 The assessment for AY 2017-18 has been framed on similar lines. The Ld. AO made addition for alleged payments made by the firm to the assessee. The Ld. AO made another addition of undisclosed income. The same was on the basis