DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

271 (1) ( c ) on interest income and disallowance u/s 14A . 1.2 The Ld CIT(A) has erred in not providing an iota of reasoning as to how the levy is not attracted in respect of interest income and U/s 14A vide a speaking order. G1.3 For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

271 (1) ( c ) on interest income and disallowance u/s 14A . 1.2 The Ld CIT(A) has erred in not providing an iota of reasoning as to how the levy is not attracted in respect of interest income and U/s 14A vide a speaking order. G1.3 For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing

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

sections 234A, 234B and 234C being consequential, and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) being independent, do not survive

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

sections 234A, 234B and 234C being consequential, and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) being independent, do not survive

DAESEUNG AUTOPARTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ACIT (OSD), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.752/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Daeseung Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Osd) Plot No,474, Mannur Village, Corporate Range-1, बनाम/ Vs. Valarpuram Post, Sriperumpudhur Taluk Chennai. Kanchipuram- 602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccd-5629-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Suresh (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

234B of the Act without appreciating the fact that there was no taxable income post setting off the brought forward losses. 22. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that accurate particulars of income were duly furnished and additions to income are only on account of differences

K. RAMALINGAM,,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-I(3),, SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

234B and 234C are calculated in accordance with law. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is initiated separately, since the assessee did not file his return of income within the time allowed u/s 139 of the Act, even though he had taxable income for the instant year in view of Explanation 3 to that section

EXCELLENCE DATA RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

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

234B of the Act. 22. The learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ground No. 1 is general in nature whereas ground nos. 21 & 22 are consequential in nature. For Ground No.20, it would be sufficient on our part to direct Ld. AO to grant MAT credit in accordance with

IT EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(3), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

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

234B of the Act. 22. The learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ground No. 1 is general in nature whereas ground nos. 21 & 22 are consequential in nature. For Ground No.20, it would be sufficient on our part to direct Ld. AO to grant MAT credit in accordance with

RBL HOTELS PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN YS LEBARA HOTELS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP CIR-4(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed

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

u/s 143(3) for AY 2013-14. 2. The Registry has noted delay of 327 days in both the appeals, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of condonation petition as accompanied by affidavit of the authorized signatory of the assessee company. It has been submitted that Lebara group went through restructuring

RBL HOTELS PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN YS LEBARA HOTELS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP CIR-4(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed

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

u/s 143(3) for AY 2013-14. 2. The Registry has noted delay of 327 days in both the appeals, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of condonation petition as accompanied by affidavit of the authorized signatory of the assessee company. It has been submitted that Lebara group went through restructuring

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. JCIT (OSD),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2546/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax (Osd), 4/249A, Rasim Enclave, Corporate Circle –1(2), Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. Near Savitha Dental College, Goparasanallur, Kattupakkam, Chennai – 600 056. Pan: Aaccc7628P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2017

section 234A and 234B of the Act. 10. The learned AO has erred, in law and In facts, In initiating penalty proceedings U/S 271

RAGHUPATHY GOWTHAM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 16(3), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the above enhancement. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining to levy of interest u/s 234A in consequence to the addition made by the AO. 8. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining to levy

KANDHAIAN POULTRY FARM,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO WARD 2, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.3079 & 3080/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Kandhaian Poultry Farm, 2/81, Ernapuram Village, Ward – 2, Namakkal – 637 003. Namakkal Pan: Aaifk8704D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

234B & 234C of the Act. 3. ITA No.3080/Chny/2017:- The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Ld.AO by invoking the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that

KANDHAIAH POULTRY FARM,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO WARD 2, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.3079 & 3080/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Kandhaian Poultry Farm, 2/81, Ernapuram Village, Ward – 2, Namakkal – 637 003. Namakkal Pan: Aaifk8704D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

234B & 234C of the Act. 3. ITA No.3080/Chny/2017:- The assessee has raised several grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Ld.AO by invoking the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that