SHEIKH KUTBUDDIN HABIB,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

Section 271(1)(c) . In so far as the assessment year in appeal, in view of the appellant's failure to file the return even belatedly, it is understood that the income liable to tax and. offered in the return in compliance to notice u/s 148 has not been voluntarily offered to tax as per provisions of the Act. After

ANOTRA REALATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)- 1, CHENNAI

u/s 271AAC are initiated separately. 7. The Tax Computation Sheet and Demand Notice are enclosed. 8. This order is passed with the prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-1, Chennai as per section 153D of the Income Tax Act. From the above, it is clear that this order is passed with the prior approval

IRIS ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Iris Engineering Industries Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., (Now Known As M/S. Ravilla Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Aerospace Industries P. Ltd.), No. 178, Coimbatore. Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan:Aaaci8996G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 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) 1, Coimbatore Dated 31.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

Section 271(1)(c) by not filing the return u/s 139 duly disclosing the particulars of capital gains chargeable to tax for Asst. Year 2012-13. 6. Further, the assessee claims that the company was voluntarily planning to approach the income tax department and seek its guidance as to how to file the return of income after passage

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPOLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

penalty should have been levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for denial of deduction claimed under section 801B(10) of the Act. Secondly, the assessing officer is not correct in making a fresh assessment u/s 143(3) r/w 254

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

penalty should have been levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for denial of deduction claimed under section 801B(10) of the Act. Secondly, the assessing officer is not correct in making a fresh assessment u/s 143(3) r/w 254

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

penalty should have been levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for denial of deduction claimed under section 801B(10) of the Act. Secondly, the assessing officer is not correct in making a fresh assessment u/s 143(3) r/w 254

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

penalty should have been levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for denial of deduction claimed under section 801B(10) of the Act. Secondly, the assessing officer is not correct in making a fresh assessment u/s 143(3) r/w 254

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

254 held the same view. In this case it was held that it cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. Once the assessee has proved the identity of his creditors, the genuineness of the transactions, and the creditworthiness of his creditors vis-à-vis the transactions which he had with

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

254 held the same view. In this case it was held that it cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. Once the assessee has proved the identity of his creditors, the genuineness of the transactions, and the creditworthiness of his creditors vis-à-vis the transactions which he had with

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

271(1) read with Section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner might pass such order as the circumstances of the case might justify, which could include an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment. Directing fresh assessment would, in our view, include assessment of penalty. It cannot, therefore, be said that

R.VASUKI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 292B on the statute (introduced by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, w.e.f. 01/10/1975) at the relevant time, which specifically mandates that an omission, mistake or defect shall not invalidate, inter alia, a notice, where it is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act, i.e., to provide, per a notice

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

254(1) of the Income-tax Act which limits the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in any manner. For reasons which we have set out earlier, the phrase "pass such order thereon" does not in any way restrict the jurisdiction of the Tribunal but, on the contrary, confers the wides possible jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal including jurisdiction to permit

SEOYON E-HWA SUMMIT AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

u/s 143(3) passed by the AO dated 05.02.2013, the AO didn’t record any satisfaction about levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, which was challenged by the assessee before Ld CIT(A) & finally before this Tribunal; and the Tribunal vide order dated 18.09.2018 was pleased to confirm the action of the AO (i) disallowing Rs.10

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

HARRINGTON HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 89,90 & 91/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008

section 148 of the Income- tax Act, 1961. Due to the above reasons there was delay in filing of the return of income, but there was no concealment or suppression of any income and all tax dues as per the return was paid The amount outstanding as per the order is only the tax on ,disallowance of some expenses

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S BRITISH AGRO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 969 & 970/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. British Agro Products Income Tax, V. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 9, State Bank Officers Chennai – 600 034. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafcb-8238-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 80JJA of the Act. 16.4. The order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Blue Mountain vs. ITO (1985) 14 ITD 254 (Bang.), does not discuss the issue in question and hence not relevant. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Malhotra Mukesh Satpal (2008) 115 ITD 467 (Pune

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S BRITISH AGRO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 969 & 970/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. British Agro Products Income Tax, V. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 9, State Bank Officers Chennai – 600 034. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafcb-8238-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 80JJA of the Act. 16.4. The order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Blue Mountain vs. ITO (1985) 14 ITD 254 (Bang.), does not discuss the issue in question and hence not relevant. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Malhotra Mukesh Satpal (2008) 115 ITD 467 (Pune