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 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking-off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non- application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even

R V R NAGESH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE VENGATTARAYALU RAJAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD - 22(4), TAMBARAM, TAMBARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was\na vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the\nassessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of\nmind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the\npenalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n- 4 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n4. Ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 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\n-5-\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

penalty\nproceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn't require\nany

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n- 4 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n4. Ground

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.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n- 4 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n4. Ground

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking- off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even in the body

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn't require\nany

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds. The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.” - 5 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 4. Ground

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds. The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.” - 5 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 4. Ground

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2024 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of V. 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate %&थ$कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri R. Clement Ramesh : Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 :

271(1)(c) of the Act & Sec.270A of the Act, and wordings therein both provisions are s wordings therein both provisions are similar and para materia to each imilar and para materia to each other. Although, the term ‘tax evasion’ has been redefined by way of other. Although, the term ‘tax evasion’ has been redefined by way of other. Although

M/S ENRIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

271(1)(c) of the Act & Sec.270A of the Act, and wordings therein both provisions are similar and para materia to each other. Although, the term ‘tax evasion’ has been redefined by way of ‘under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income’ but it is synonymous to concealment of particular of income or furnishing

M/S ENRICE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

271(1)(c) of the Act & Sec.270A of the Act, and wordings therein both provisions are similar and para materia to each other. Although, the term ‘tax evasion’ has been redefined by way of ‘under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income’ but it is synonymous to concealment of particular of income or furnishing

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

271(1)(c) of the Act & Sec.270A of the Act, and wordings therein both provisions are similar and para materia to each other. Although, the term ‘tax evasion’ has been redefined by way of ‘under reporting of income and under reporting as a consequence of misreporting of income’ but it is synonymous to concealment of particular of income or furnishing

M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

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

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

penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue. We may also ITA Nos.1215 to 1217/Chny/2025 (AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) M/s. Redington Distribution Pte. Ltd. :: 11 :: note that against the quantum

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXN CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

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

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

penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 on the ground that the issue of deduction under section 14A of the Act was a debatable issue. We may also ITA Nos.1215 to 1217/Chny/2025 (AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21) M/s. Redington Distribution Pte. Ltd. :: 11 :: note that against the quantum