DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the\nCross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

5)\n13. On the strength of the aforesaid propositions, the Ld. CIT(DR)\npleaded for dismissal of the cross-objections of the assessee.\n14. The Ld. AR in his rejoinder submitted that, the language used in\nSection 275(1)(c) of the Act used the phrase 'initiation of action for\nimposition of penalty' does not mean the imposition of penalty

M/S.ENRICA 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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge 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. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

M/S ENRICA 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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge 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. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 270A of the Act d) No prejudice Caused to the assessee The Ld.DR submitted that prejudice has been caused to the assessee, as the assessee was given opportunity of being heard. Our Submission When the impugned penalty notice is invalid, the entire proceedings gets vitiated

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 270A of the Act d) No prejudice Caused to the assessee The Ld.DR submitted that prejudice has been caused to the assessee, as the assessee was given opportunity of being heard. Our Submission When the impugned penalty notice is invalid, the entire proceedings gets vitiated

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

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

21 ::\nIf you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person\nor through authorized representative, you may show cause in writing on or\nbefore the said date which will be considered before any such order is made\nunder section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n14. In the light of the discussion (supra

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

5 ::\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\nmanually on 23.09.2021 and paid tax on it on 29.07.2020 viz., on the\namount of shortfall in the application of funds to the extent

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

5. The Assessee challenged the above order before the CIT (A). In the order dated 22nd July 2013, the CIT (A) deleted the above penalty inter alia on the ground that, in terms of Section 275 (1) (c) of the Act, the penalty order could have only been passed on or before 30th June 2008 and therefore, the penalty order

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

5. The Assessee challenged the above order before the CIT (A). In the order dated 22nd July 2013, the CIT (A) deleted the above penalty inter alia on the ground that, in terms of Section 275 (1) (c) of the Act, the penalty order could have only been passed on or before 30th June 2008 and therefore, the penalty order

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

5. The Assessee challenged the above order before the CIT (A). In the order dated 22nd July 2013, the CIT (A) deleted the above penalty inter alia on the ground that, in terms of Section 275 (1) (c) of the Act, the penalty order could have only been passed on or before 30th June 2008 and therefore, the penalty order

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

5. The ld. CIT(A) has arrived at the capital gain on sale of goodwill at ₹.67.50 crores as against ₹.126,67,00,000/- assessed in the order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. 6. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT on jurisdiction challenging the order of the ld. CIT. The ITAT, in their order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. SJ SURYAH, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act or not ? On perusal of the SCN dated 30.03.2005, we note that both the faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are given therein i.e. “the assessee have concealed the particulars of his income” or “furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. In other words, the AO has put to notice

SHRI.S.J.SURYAH,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act or not ? On perusal of the SCN dated 30.03.2005, we note that both the faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are given therein i.e. “the assessee have concealed the particulars of his income” or “furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. In other words, the AO has put to notice

MANGAL & MANGAL,TRICHY vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2207/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the presumption of undisclosed profit on account of undervaluation of stock was wholly unjustified and factually not correct while vitiating the penalty imposed in relation thereto. 6. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the levy of penalty for the other addition on the presumed excess stock of jewellery without assigning proper reasons

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

u/s 271AAB is leviable only on undisclosed income and not merely on an admission made by the assessee u/s.132 (4). The assessing officer has miserably failed to quantify the undisclosed income. :: 3 :: 9. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the AO while levying penalty under section 271 AAB failed to follow the specific definition of undisclosed income