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

2) of section 270A is\nsatisfied, has also not specifically mentioned the exact limb\nof misreporting as per section 270A(9) of the Act. Further,\nthe AO stated under reported income amounting to\nRs.91,47,331/- in his penalty order but levied 200% penalty.\n5.4 By respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble High\ncourt of Delhi in the case

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

2) of section 270A is\nsatisfied, has also not specifically mentioned the exact limb\nof misreporting as per section 270A(9) of the Act. Further,\nthe AO stated under reported income amounting to\nRs.91,47,331/- in his penalty order but levied 200% penalty.\n5.4 By respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble High\ncourt of Delhi in the case

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

2) of section 270A is\nsatisfied, has also not specifically mentioned the exact limb\nof misreporting as per section 270A(9) of the Act. Further,\nthe AO stated under reported income amounting to\nRs.91,47,331/- in his penalty order but levied 200% penalty.\n5.4 By respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble High\ncourt of Delhi in the case

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

2) of section 270A is\nsatisfied, has also not specifically mentioned the exact limb\nof misreporting as per section 270A(9) of the Act. Further,\nthe AO stated under reported income amounting to\nRs.91,47,331/- in his penalty order but levied 200% penalty.\n5.4 By respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble High\ncourt of Delhi in the case

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.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 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

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

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

u/s 270A (Misreporting), 271AAB and 271AAC are not diseretionary. For the assessing officer to drop any penalty, the discretion should be available to him in the respective provisions of the act. He argued that Section 273B of the Act gives the discretion to AO to drop penalty proceedings initiated under following sections, if assessee proves that there is reasonable cause

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

u/s 270A (Misreporting), 271AAB and 271AAC are not diseretionary. For the assessing officer to drop any penalty, the discretion should be available to him in the respective provisions of the act. He argued that Section 273B of the Act gives the discretion to AO to drop penalty proceedings initiated under following sections, if assessee proves that there is reasonable cause

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

u/s 270A (Misreporting), 271AAB and 271AAC are not diseretionary. For the assessing officer to drop any penalty, the discretion should be available to him in the respective provisions of the act. He argued that Section 273B of the Act gives the discretion to AO to drop penalty proceedings initiated under following sections, if assessee proves that there is reasonable cause

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

2) defines 'under-reported income'. Section 270A (6) spells out instances of exceptions to under-reporting of Income. Section 270A(9) defines 'misreporting of Income*. Verification of penalty order under consideration shows that the AO has clearly mentioned in the penalty order that it is a case of misreporting income and attracts clauses (c) & (d) of section 270A(9) vide

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

2) defines 'under-reported income'. Section 270A (6) spells out instances of exceptions to under-reporting of Income. Section 270A(9) defines 'misreporting of Income*. Verification of penalty order under consideration shows that the AO has clearly mentioned in the penalty order that it is a case of misreporting income and attracts clauses (c) & (d) of section 270A(9) vide

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 :

section 2 to 6 of Sec.270A of the Act. In the present case, these provisions are not relevant, because, the AO In the present case, these provisions are not relevant, because, the AO In the present case, these provisions are not relevant, because, the AO has not invoked under reporting of income. The second limb or charge

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

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

270A or section 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be imposed in respect of the undisclosed income, as defined u/s 271AAB of the Act, unearthed during the search action carried out u/s 132 of the Act. It is to be noted that the provisions of section 271AAB and section 271(1)(c) of the Act simultaneously existed and were

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

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

2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that levy of penalty u/s.270A(9)(a) of the Act is bad in law, since the AO failed to record his satisfaction in the body of the assessment order that the assessee has misreported consequent to underreporting of income u/s.270A(9)(c) of the Act nor has given any direction indicating initiation