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 IT Act. The\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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 IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

163 taxmann.com 105 • Hon’ble ITAT- Delhi – Jaina Marketing & Associates Vs DCIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 439 (Delhi - Trib.) ITA Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19 & 2020-21) St. Joseph’s Educational Trust & ITA Nos.3295 to 3297/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21) St. Joseph’s Institute of Science & Technology Trust :: 14 :: Following the Hon’ble SC decision in the case

ST.JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

163 taxmann.com 105 • Hon’ble ITAT- Delhi – Jaina Marketing & Associates Vs DCIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 439 (Delhi - Trib.) ITA Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19 & 2020-21) St. Joseph’s Educational Trust & ITA Nos.3295 to 3297/Chny/2024 (AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21) St. Joseph’s Institute of Science & Technology Trust :: 14 :: Following the Hon’ble SC decision in the case

ST. JOSHEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

163 taxmann.com 105\n• Hon'ble ITAT- Delhi Jaina Marketing & Associates Vs DCIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 439\n(Delhi - Trib.)\n:: 14 ::\nITA Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024\n(AYs 2018-19 & 2020-21)\nSt. Joseph's Educational Trust\n&\nITA Nos.3295 to 3297/Chny/2024\n(AYS 2018-19 to 2020-21)\nSt. Joseph's Institute of Science &\nTechnology Trust\nFollowing

ST. JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

163 taxmann.com 105\n•\nHon'ble ITAT- Delhi\nJaina Marketing & Associates Vs DCIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 439\n(Delhi - Trib.)\n:: 14 ::\nFollowing the Hon'ble SC decision in the case of CIT VS SSA Emerald Meadows [2016] 73\ntaxmann.com 241 (SC)\nHence, it is settled issue, upheld in several judicial decisions, that the AO is\nrequired to indicate

DAKSHINAMOORTHY KUMARESAN,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c), then consequential notice under section 274\nissued by Assessing Officer to assessee to afford him opportunity of hearing, was\nspecifically a notice for penalty for concealment of particulars of income/undisclosed\nincome; such a notice complied with principles of natural justice and was a valid\nnotice under section 274 of the Act. He also relied on the judgment

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

u/s 271(1)(c) in relation to the addition finally confirmed under the MAP resolution for AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17 and penalty under the new penal provisions of Section 270A(2) in AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. It is observed that, the reasoning given for levying penalty was similar viz., the assessee didn’t offer

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

u/s 271(1)(c) in relation to the addition finally confirmed under the MAP resolution for AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17 and penalty under the new penal provisions of Section 270A(2) in AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. It is observed that, the reasoning given for levying penalty was similar viz., the assessee didn’t offer

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

u/s 271(1)(c) in relation to the addition finally confirmed under the MAP resolution for AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17 and penalty under the new penal provisions of Section 270A(2) in AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. It is observed that, the reasoning given for levying penalty was similar viz., the assessee didn’t offer

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

163 u/s 68 taxed under 115BBE are deleted. 10. Facts of ITA No.1801/Chny/2024 for AY 2015-16: A search u/s 132 of IT Act was conducted in the residential premises of Shri V.Natarajan and simultaneously a search u/s 132 was also carried out in the premises of M/s Pavai Varam Educational Trust on 27.12.2016. Statements u/s 132(4) were recorded

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

163 u/s 68 taxed under 115BBE are deleted. 10. Facts of ITA No.1801/Chny/2024 for AY 2015-16: A search u/s 132 of IT Act was conducted in the residential premises of Shri V.Natarajan and simultaneously a search u/s 132 was also carried out in the premises of M/s Pavai Varam Educational Trust on 27.12.2016. Statements u/s 132(4) were recorded

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

M/S POTHYS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 1360/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Pothys, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.15, Dr.Nageswara Rao Road, Income Tax, T. Nagar, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaffp 2437B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate For Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

u/s 234E of the Act. Section 234E of the Income Tax Act reads as under:- Fee for default in furnishing statements - (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 200 or the proviso to sub-section

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

INDO NATIONAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3289/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2016-17

163 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is a company and filed the return of income for A.Y 2016- 17 on 17.10.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 30,04,81,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the A.O completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) assessing the income