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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

270A(9) is quashed. Ground of appeal #4: PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271AAB IS OPTIONAL AND NOT MANDATORY The Ld. AO erred in levying penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act vide order dated 30- 03-2022 without considering the appellants submission that the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act is discretionary and not mandatory in nature

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

270A(9) is quashed. Ground of appeal #4: PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271AAB IS OPTIONAL AND NOT MANDATORY The Ld. AO erred in levying penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act vide order dated 30- 03-2022 without considering the appellants submission that the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB of the Act is discretionary and not mandatory in nature

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

270A(9) is quashed.\nGround of appeal #4: PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271AAB IS\nOPTIONAL AND NOT MANDATORY\nThe Ld. AO erred in levying penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act vide order dated 30-\n03-2022 without considering the appellants submission that the levy of penalty\nunder Section 271AAB of the Act is discretionary and not mandatory in nature

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

270A(9) is quashed.\nGround of appeal #4: PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271AAB IS\nOPTIONAL AND NOT MANDATORY\nThe Ld. AO erred in levying penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act vide order dated 30-\n03-2022 without considering the appellants submission that the levy of penalty\nunder Section 271AAB of the Act is discretionary and not mandatory in nature

M/S ENRICE 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 132(4) for the year Rs.15,79,00,000/- and levied 200% of penalty on such tax computed. The AO is directed to compute tax payable on '*under reported income' for the year u/ s 270A( 10) (c) before levying penalty as per Sec. 270A(8), Needless to say that the appellant gets relief to the extent of excess

M/S ENRIA 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 132(4) for the year Rs.15,79,00,000/- and levied 200% of penalty on such tax computed. The AO is directed to compute tax payable on '*under reported income' for the year u/ s 270A( 10) (c) before levying penalty as per Sec. 270A(8), Needless to say that the appellant gets relief to the extent of excess

MAHENDRA KANCHANLAL MAHER INDL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1 (3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

270A, 271AAB and 271AAC are not included, so penalty proceedings initiated under these sections can be dropped only if the law provides for the same in the section itself, which is provided by way of Explanation-1 of section 271(1)(c) and for under reporting u/s

NARENDRA C. MAHER INDL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

270A, 271AAB and 271AAC are not included, so penalty proceedings initiated under these sections can be dropped only if the law provides for the same in the section itself, which is provided by way of Explanation-1 of section 271(1)(c) and for under reporting u/s

SIDDHARTH N MAHER,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

270A, 271AAB and 271AAC are not included, so penalty proceedings initiated under these sections can be dropped only if the law provides for the same in the section itself, which is provided by way of Explanation-1 of section 271(1)(c) and for under reporting u/s

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2024 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of V. 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate %&थ$कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri R. Clement Ramesh : Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 :

270A(9) of the Act, which deals (9) of the Act, which deals with claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence and with claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence and with claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence and recording of any false entry in the books of accounts. The AO has arrived recording

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. GHISULAI KOTHARI, CHENNAI

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

penalty under the provisions of section 270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income, as defined u/s

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

270A which\nis specifically excluded for this purpose vide Section 271AAC(2) as explained\nabove and that of Section 271(1)(c) that ceased to be applicable from AY 2017-\n18 (being the subject AY) onwards, thus making it void-ab-initio. Thereafter,\nthe Penalty Order in dispute too had been passed u/s

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

271(1) is concerned, the AO to record ‘satisfaction’ to levy penalty whereas in section 270A(1), the AO to give ‘direction’ for levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act.] In this case, the AO has not given any such direction while passing the assessment order on Arusuvai Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. :: 7 :: 31.03.2022, pursuant to which, he levied penalty

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. KEWALCHAND KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

penalty under the provisions of section 270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income, as defined u/s