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

26, held that when an assessee files a revised return\nshowing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of\nsuch higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka\nHigh Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing (P.) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2008]\n175 Taxman 551, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised\nreturn

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

26, held that when an assessee files a revised return\nshowing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of\nsuch higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka\nHigh Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing (P.) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2008]\n175 Taxman 551, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised\nreturn

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

26, held that when an assessee files a revised return\nshowing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of\nsuch higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka\nHigh Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing (P.) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2008]\n175 Taxman 551, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised\nreturn

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

26, held that when an assessee files a revised return\nshowing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of\nsuch higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka\nHigh Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing (P.) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2008]\n175 Taxman 551, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised\nreturn

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

26, held that when an assessee files a revised return\nshowing higher income, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of\nsuch higher income filed in the revised return. Similarly, the Karnataka\nHigh Court in the case of Bhadra Advancing (P.) Ltd v. Asstt. CIT [2008]\n175 Taxman 551, held that merely because the assessee has filed a revised\nreturn

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

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

26,75,000/-\nwithout giving effect to the application of income in accordance with the\nprovisions of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect t of the\nvoluntary contributions of INR 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

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].

section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.03.2012. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as under: 5. The Decision: 5.1 The learned AR argued that i. The issue involved is a legal issue. ii. only a different view was taken by the assessee and the department and iii. relied on the decision of Reliance Petro Products

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

26,75,000/-\nwithout giving effect to the application of income in accordance with the\nprovisions of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect t of the\nvoluntary contributions of INR 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

PVP VENTURES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), 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

iii) Reduction in Capital WIP for Rs.228.18 Lacs; (iv) Short-Term Capital Gains on land for Rs.3107.20 Lacs. 3.2 Subsequent to framing of assessment, penalty proceedings were initiated against the issue and initial show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was issued on 31.12.2010 which read as under: - Whereas in the course of proceedings before

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

iii) it may be based on any ground, whether on facts or in law. (iv) it may be total denial of liability (v) it may be total denial of liability under particular circumstances. 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee further relied on the CBDT Circular issued vide its Circular No.269 dated 29.04.1980, as reported

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

iii) it may be based on any ground, whether on facts or in law. (iv) it may be total denial of liability (v) it may be total denial of liability under particular circumstances. 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee further relied on the CBDT Circular issued vide its Circular No.269 dated 29.04.1980, as reported

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

iii) it may be based on any ground, whether on facts or in law. (iv) it may be total denial of liability (v) it may be total denial of liability under particular circumstances. 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee further relied on the CBDT Circular issued vide its Circular No.269 dated 29.04.1980, as reported

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

iii) it may be based on any ground, whether on facts or in law. (iv) it may be total denial of liability (v) it may be total denial of liability under particular circumstances. 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee further relied on the CBDT Circular issued vide its Circular No.269 dated 29.04.1980, as reported

M/S. ARCHANA FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

iii) it may be based on any ground, whether on facts or in law. (iv) it may be total denial of liability (v) it may be total denial of liability under particular circumstances. 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee further relied on the CBDT Circular issued vide its Circular No.269 dated 29.04.1980, as reported

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

iii) it may be based on any ground, whether on facts or in law. (iv) it may be total denial of liability (v) it may be total denial of liability under particular circumstances. 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee further relied on the CBDT Circular issued vide its Circular No.269 dated 29.04.1980, as reported

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

iii) it may be based on any ground, whether on facts or in law. (iv) it may be total denial of liability (v) it may be total denial of liability under particular circumstances. 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee further relied on the CBDT Circular issued vide its Circular No.269 dated 29.04.1980, as reported