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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. (Pan: Aamts 3888 G) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 271AAB of the Act Further, the Ld.DR reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) do not death with the section 292B of the Act at all. Further, this decision only

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aamts 3888 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 271AAB of the Act :: 15 :: Following the Hon'ble SC decision in the case of CIT VS SSA Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (SC) Hence, it is settled issue, upheld in several judicial decisions, that the AO is required to indicate the limb

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

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. 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

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

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

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 MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 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

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

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 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. 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 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

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca : 03.09.2025 : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

u/s. Amount of penalty levied (Rs.) 1 1650/Chny/2025 2015-16 13.03.2025 30.09.2022 271(1)(c) 1,11,89,533 2 1651/Chny/2025 2017-18 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 62,74,154 3 1652/Chny/2025 2018-19 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 92,46,838 4 1653/Chny/2025 2019-20 12.03.2025 27.09.2022 270A 1,09,97,688 5 1654/Chny/2025 2020-21 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 1

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

u/s. Amount of penalty levied (Rs.) 1 1650/Chny/2025 2015-16 13.03.2025 30.09.2022 271(1)(c) 1,11,89,533 2 1651/Chny/2025 2017-18 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 62,74,154 3 1652/Chny/2025 2018-19 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 92,46,838 4 1653/Chny/2025 2019-20 12.03.2025 27.09.2022 270A 1,09,97,688 5 1654/Chny/2025 2020-21 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 1

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1650, 1651, 1652, 1653, 1654 & 1655/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dcit, Central Circle 2 (2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing Vs. Ethirajulu Vajravel Kumaran, 50A, Bhavaji Nagar, 2Nd Street, Chengam Road, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. Pan: Alipk 1937H (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca : 03.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: These Six Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Chennai-19, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Orders Of Cit(A) Arise Out Of Orders Of Ao Imposing Penalties U/S.271(1)(C) / 270A / 271Aa Of The Act. The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16, 2017-18, To 2021-22. The Details Of The Respective Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are As Under: - S. No.

u/s. Amount of penalty levied (Rs.) 1 1650/Chny/2025 2015-16 13.03.2025 30.09.2022 271(1)(c) 1,11,89,533 2 1651/Chny/2025 2017-18 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 62,74,154 3 1652/Chny/2025 2018-19 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 92,46,838 4 1653/Chny/2025 2019-20 12.03.2025 27.09.2022 270A 1,09,97,688 5 1654/Chny/2025 2020-21 12.03.2025 28.09.2022 270A 1