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

2. 13. In view of the above findings and relying on the judicial\npronouncements as discussed above, the penalty levied consequence to the\nissue of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed

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

2. 13. In view of the above findings and relying on the judicial\npronouncements as discussed above, the penalty levied consequence to the\nissue of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed

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

2. 13. In view of the above findings and relying on the judicial\npronouncements as discussed above, the penalty levied consequence to the\nissue of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed

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

2. 13. In view of the above findings and relying on the judicial\npronouncements as discussed above, the penalty levied consequence to the\nissue of notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed

MUTHURATHINAM,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), TIRUPPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2656/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Muthurathinam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27/29, Kumarappapuram, Ward 1(2) 1St Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tirupur. Tirupur 641 601. [Pan: Avypm 0862D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, (Erode) Advocate By Virtual. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () This Penalty Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21.08.2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issue Sought To Be Urged By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified In Upholding The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] By Ignoring The Fact That The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ In Short) In Assessment Order Dated 28.09.2021 Has Satisfied That Penalty Proceeding Is Being Initiated Separately For “Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income” Where As Penalty Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 04.01.2022 Levied Penalty For “Concealment Of Income”, Although In The Notice Under Section 274 Read With Section 271(1) (C), The Ao Has Marked The Specified Limb As “That You Have Furnished Inaccurate Particulars Of Such Income”.

penalty for “concealment of income”, although in the notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1) (c), the AO has marked the specified limb as “that you have furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. 3. For the sake of convenience, it will be apposite to refer to the facts of the case. Shorn of all necessary details, the facts

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

151(ii) of\nthe Act, the consequential re-assessment order passed in terms of Section 147\nof the Act is to be considered as non-est in law and as a consequence, the PCIT\n1, Madurai could not have set aside such invalid / non-est re-assessment by\ninvoking revisionary jurisdiction in terms of Section

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

151 & Section 153, the Assessing Officer will issue notice as per provisions of 153A. The intention of the parliament for separate Sections for issuing notice u/s 143(2) and Section 153A is specifically different ITA No.1103/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20) Bondalapati Shivaji Rao :: 27 :: and falls in particular circumstances mentioned in those particular Sections. It cannot be interlocated or inter related

BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and\nappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

151 & Section 153, the Assessing Officer will issue notice as per\nprovisions of 153A. The intention of the parliament for separate Sections\nfor issuing notice u/s 143(2) and Section 153A is specifically different\nITA No.1044/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20)\nITA No.1103/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20)\nBondalapati Shivaji Rao\n:: 27 ::\nand falls in particular circumstances mentioned in those particular\nSections

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.\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

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

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.\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

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

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