MAHENDRA KANCHANLAL MAHER INDL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1 (3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

271(1)(c) and for under reporting u/s 270A, by way of clause(a) of sub-section (6). Thus, it 271AAB and 271AAC. The words 'may' is used in these sections to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to facilitate the assessee to submit its case, if it does not fall under the criteria mentioned

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

200%) but failed to establish it. Absent evidence of falsification or misrepresentation under Section 270A(3), the 50% penalty must be presumed to correctly apply to under-reporting. 4. Conclusion The Revenue submits that the penalty notice under Section 270A is valid. The 50% penalty aligns with under-reporting under Section 270A(7), and the failure to score out "misreporting

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

200%) but failed to establish it. Absent evidence of falsification or misrepresentation under Section 270A(3), the 50% penalty must be presumed to correctly apply to under-reporting. 4. Conclusion The Revenue submits that the penalty notice under Section 270A is valid. The 50% penalty aligns with under-reporting under Section 270A(7), and the failure to score out "misreporting

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. (Pan: Aamts 3888 G) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

200%) but failed to establish it. Absent evidence of falsification or misrepresentation under Section 270A(3), the 50% penalty must be presumed to correctly apply to under-reporting. 4. Conclusion The Revenue submits that the penalty notice under Section 270A is valid. The 50% penalty aligns with under-reporting under Section 270A(7), and the failure to score out "misreporting

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aamts 3888 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

200%) but failed to establish it. Absent evidence of falsification or misrepresentation under Section 270A(3), the 50% penalty must be presumed to correctly apply to under-reporting. 4. Conclusion The Revenue submits that the penalty notice under Section 270A is valid. The 50% penalty aligns with under-reporting under Section 270A(7), and the failure to score out "misreporting

THE CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF THE CROSS OF CHAVANOD ,TRICHY vs. CIT , CPC , TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.807/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Congregation Of The Sisters Of The The Acit, Cpc बनाम/ Cross Of Chavanod, Tds, Ghaziabad Holy Cross Provincilate, Puthur, Vs. Tiruchirappalli-620 017. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan: Aaatt-4867-G / (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) : (*+थ) / Respondent) अपीलाथ)कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None *+थ)कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

D. SENTHAMARAISELVI,DINDIGUL vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

D. SENTHAMARAISELVI,DINDIGUL vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

D. SENTHAMARAISELVI,DINDIGUL vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

VEERA CREATIONS,TIRUPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,TDS WARD, TIRUPUR

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD1,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTUIONS COMPANY P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S. SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD.1,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section