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

2. Creditworthiness of creditor and 3. Genuineness of transaction. Only when these three things are established prima facie by placing relevant documentary evidence, the department is required to undertake further exercise. Merely proving identity of lender does not discharge the onus of assessee, if the capacity or creditworthiness has not been established. Proving creditworthiness means assessee should file evidence

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

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

2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the revision order passed by PCIT u/s.263 of the Act holding that the assessment order passed u/s.153C of the Act dated 28.03.2022 is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for the reason that the AO has initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271AAC of the Act instead of initiating

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)

2. The sole issue is whether the lower authorities are justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act in the peculiar facts of the case for AYs 2011- 12, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 ? 3. First we are taking ITA No.2740/Chny/2024 for AY 2011-12 as lead case. Brief facts of the case are as under

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)

2. The sole issue is whether the lower authorities are justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act in the peculiar facts of the case for AYs 2011- 12, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 ? 3. First we are taking ITA No.2740/Chny/2024 for AY 2011-12 as lead case. Brief facts of the case are as under

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)

2. The sole issue is whether the lower authorities are justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act in the peculiar facts of the case for AYs 2011- 12, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 ? 3. First we are taking ITA No.2740/Chny/2024 for AY 2011-12 as lead case. Brief facts of the case are as under

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)

2. The sole issue is whether the lower authorities are justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act in the peculiar facts of the case for AYs 2011- 12, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 ? 3. First we are taking ITA No.2740/Chny/2024 for AY 2011-12 as lead case. Brief facts of the case are as under

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

2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable and therefore, deleted the penalty levied by the learned AO. 3. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not deleting the penalty levied u/s 271

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

2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have held that in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable and therefore, deleted the penalty levied by the learned AO. 3. The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not deleting the penalty levied u/s 271

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].

2 crores was already accounted in the books of Ravila Aerospace towards land advance. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer determined the long term capital gains of ₹.98,92,494/- arising out of sale of 2.84 acres of land and completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 24.03.2016. 2.1 Since, only due to survey

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

2(1A) of the Act. Much water has flown since the introduction and repeal of Section 80JJA. With the passage of time the views change. We are of the opinion that the conclusion on this issue cannot be guided by this Section 80JJA of the Act. 16.4. The order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case

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

2(1A) of the Act. Much water has flown since the introduction and repeal of Section 80JJA. With the passage of time the views change. We are of the opinion that the conclusion on this issue cannot be guided by this Section 80JJA of the Act. 16.4. The order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case

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

u/s 143(2) is again impermissible in the light of the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd. (cited supra). In my view the matter has not reached the finality and, therefore, it was open to the assessee to take up the issue even in the second round of litigation. I have gone through

R.VASUKI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

2 R.Vasuki v. Dy. CIT is a director, was subject to survey u/s. 133A of the Act on 10.09.2012 at its business premises. It was found to have credited ". 4.30 cr. as share application money in its’ books of account during financial year (f.y.) 2009-10, i.e., the relevant previous year. The company could not produce any evidence in respect

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SMT. REETA LANKALINGAM, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S.S. Godara

271/- 5 17/2014 Assessee 2010-11 1. Deemed Dividend u/s.2(22) (e) – Addition of " 66,86,509/- 6 18/2014 Assessee 2011-12 1.Deemed Dividend u/s.2(22) (e) – Addition of " 2,42,99,879/- In the course of hearing, both parties agree that ITA No.19/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2005-2006 and ITA No. 21/Mds/2014 for the assessment year

ATHIYUR NATESAN RADHAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1503/Chny/2019 धनिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2009-10 V. Shri Athiyur Natesan Radhakrishnan The Deputy Commissioner Of 931, 69Th Street,11Th Sector, Income-Tax, K K Nagar, Chennai-600078 Central Circle-2(1) Investigation Wing, Room No. 122 1St Floor, New No. 46, M.G.Road Chennai-600034. [Pan: Aacpr5498M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 249(2) of the 1961 Act, for which the assessee had sought for condonation of aforesaid delay of 345 days in filing this appeal before the learned CIT(A) , but learned CIT(A) refused to condone the aforesaid delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, vide appellate order dated 10.04.2019. The learned counsel for the assessee stated before

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