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 Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

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 Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

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 Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 24. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, we find that petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice on 02.06.2022. In his reply

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

24-03-2025 is\nfound to have acknowledged that he had examined/verified each of the\nletters of the alleged depositors, documents and proof of their address,\nwherein the said persons have denied having made any cash deposits\nwith the assessee company and expressed his view that the confirmation-\nletters [i.e. the remaining 111 parties] were found to be acceptable.\nTaking

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

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

24,15,120/-.\n9.\nIn the assessment order, the AO recorded a finding that\npenalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act will be initiated for\nconcealment of particulars of income. Pursuant thereto, the AO,\nvide notice dated 27.03.2022 issued u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, called upon the assessee to show cause as to why\npenalty should

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

24,15,120/-.\n9.\nIn the assessment order, the AO recorded a finding that\npenalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act will be initiated for\nconcealment of particulars of income. Pursuant thereto, the AO,\nvide notice dated 27.03.2022 issued u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, called upon the assessee to show cause as to why\npenalty should

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

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

24,15,120/-.\n9. In the assessment order, the AO recorded a finding that\npenalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act will be initiated for\nconcealment of particulars of income. Pursuant thereto, the AO,\nvide notice dated 27.03.2022 issued u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, called upon the assessee to show cause as to why\npenalty should

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

24,15,120/-.\n9.\nIn the assessment order, the AO recorded a finding that\npenalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act will be initiated for\nconcealment of particulars of income. Pursuant thereto, the AO,\nvide notice dated 27.03.2022 issued u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, called upon the assessee to show cause as to why\npenalty should

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

24,15,120/-.\n9.\nIn the assessment order, the AO recorded a finding that\npenalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act will be initiated for\nconcealment of particulars of income. Pursuant thereto, the AO,\nvide notice dated 27.03.2022 issued u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, called upon the assessee to show cause as to why\npenalty should

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

24,15,120/-.\n9.\nIn the assessment order, the AO recorded a finding that\npenalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act will be initiated for\nconcealment of particulars of income. Pursuant thereto, the AO,\nvide notice dated 27.03.2022 issued u/s.274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, called upon the assessee to show cause as to why\npenalty should

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 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of Income Tax Act. The penalty proceedings must stand on its own. Therefore, the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. Further, penal provisions must be construed strictly and ambiguity, if any, must be resolved in assessee's favour

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

24,00,000/- which the appellant is duly entitled\nto.\nGround of appeal #10: INCORRECT RATE OF PENALTY LEVY\nWithout prejudice to the above grounds, The Ld. AO erred by computing the\npenalty at the rate of 60 percent instead of 30 percent though your appellant\nhas satisfied the entire conditions listed under clause (a) of Section\n271AAB

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

24,00,000/- which the appellant is duly entitled\nto.\nGround of appeal #10: INCORRECT RATE OF PENALTY LEVY\nWithout prejudice to the above grounds, The Ld. AO erred by computing the\npenalty at the rate of 60 percent instead of 30 percent though your appellant\nhas satisfied the entire conditions listed under clause (a) of Section\n271AAB

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].

u/s 143(3) rws 263 of the Act. However, the CIT(A) in the order referred to above has confirmed the addition of capital gain on sale at Rs.67.50crores. The AO imposed penalty on this quantum i.e. 67.50 crores. The software division was transferred for a consideration of Rs.350 crores. This consideration was apportioned as follows: Towards Current Assets

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

24,31,17,997 7. Accordingly I levy a penalty of a sum of Rs. 2,43,11,800/- u/s. 271AAB(1)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961, being 10% of total undisclosed income, which should be paid as per demand notice and challan enclosed.” 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before