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

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

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 and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

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

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 and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

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

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 and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23. Aggrieved by the order

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

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 and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

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

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 and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

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

153(1)(b) of the Act. The only addition / disallowance made in the assessment order was disallowance u/s 14A and treatment of agricultural income for Rs.3.43 Lacs. However, since self-assessment tax was not paid and the assessee failed to rectify the defect, the return was treated as not filed and the assessment was made on best judgment basis u/s

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

153(1)(b) of the Act. The only addition / disallowance made in the assessment order was disallowance u/s 14A and treatment of agricultural income for Rs.0.33 Lacs. However, since self-assessment tax was not paid and the assessee failed to rectify the defect, the return was treated as not filed and the assessment was made on best judgment basis u/s

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

153(1)(b) of the Act. The only addition / disallowance made in the assessment order was disallowance u/s 14A and treatment of agricultural income for Rs.1.50 Lacs. However, since self-assessment tax was not paid and the assessee failed to rectify the defect, the return was treated as not filed and the assessment was made on best judgment basis u/s

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

153(1)(b) of the Act. The only addition / disallowance made in the assessment order was disallowance u/s 14A and treatment of agricultural income for Rs.0.48 Lacs. However, since self-assessment tax was not paid and the assessee failed to rectify the defect, the return was treated as not filed and the assessment was made on best judgment basis u/s

ANOTRA REALATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)- 1, CHENNAI

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

u/s 271AAC are initiated separately.\n7. The Tax Computation Sheet and Demand Notice are enclosed.\n8. This order is passed with the prior approval of the Additional\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-1, Chennai as per section\n153D of the Income Tax Act.\nFrom the above, it is clear that this order is passed with the prior\napproval

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

271(1)(c ) and 271B for AY-2012-13. The appeal vide ITA No.1293 is contesting order u/s 144 for AY-2016-17 2.0 The registry informed that there is a delay 5 days in appeals filed by the ITA No.1290 and 1293. The assesse has pleaded that there was some misunderstanding qua limitation timelines contributing to the impugned delay

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

271(1)(c ) and 271B for AY-2012-13. The appeal vide ITA No.1293 is contesting order u/s 144 for AY-2016-17 2.0 The registry informed that there is a delay 5 days in appeals filed by the ITA No.1290 and 1293. The assesse has pleaded that there was some misunderstanding qua limitation timelines contributing to the impugned delay

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

271(1)(c ) and 271B for AY-2012-13. The appeal vide ITA No.1293 is contesting order u/s 144 for AY-2016-17 2.0 The registry informed that there is a delay 5 days in appeals filed by the ITA No.1290 and 1293. The assesse has pleaded that there was some misunderstanding qua limitation timelines contributing to the impugned delay

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

271(1)(c ) and 271B for AY-2012-13. The appeal vide ITA No.1293 is contesting order u/s 144 for AY-2016-17 2.0 The registry informed that there is a delay 5 days in appeals filed by the ITA No.1290 and 1293. The assesse has pleaded that there was some misunderstanding qua limitation timelines contributing to the impugned delay

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

153 assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section or recompute the loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

153 assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section or recompute the loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section

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

153 assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section or recompute the loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section

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

153 assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section or recompute the loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the AY concerned 8.1. From a cursory reading of Section