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

9) of the Act is specified. In view of this,\nthe satisfaction arrived by the AO in initiating proceedings u/s 270A\nof the Act is only ambiguous. Further as evident in the records, the\nAO at the first instance initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the\nAct for under reporting of income vide notice dated 27.03.2022 and\ncontinued

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

9) of the Act is specified. In view of this,\nthe satisfaction arrived by the AO in initiating proceedings u/s 270A\nof the Act is only ambiguous. Further as evident in the records, the\nAO at the first instance initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the\nAct for under reporting of income vide notice dated 27.03.2022 and\ncontinued

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

9) of the Act is specified. In view of this,\nthe satisfaction arrived by the AO in initiating proceedings u/s 270A\nof the Act is only ambiguous. Further as evident in the records, the\nAO at the first instance initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the\nAct for under reporting of income vide notice dated 27.03.2022 and\ncontinued

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

9) of the Act is specified. In view of this,\nthe satisfaction arrived by the AO in initiating proceedings u/s 270A\nof the Act is only ambiguous. Further as evident in the records, the\nAO at the first instance initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the\nAct for under reporting of income vide notice dated 27.03.2022 and\ncontinued

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

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

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

section 270A (6) do not apply. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that having given a finding that facts of case attract 270A (9), the AO was under no obligation to verify whether facts of case attract 270A (6) or not as it is already held that it is not case of pure under-reporting. 7.4.4 While disposing appeal

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

section 270A (6) do not apply. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that having given a finding that facts of case attract 270A (9), the AO was under no obligation to verify whether facts of case attract 270A (6) or not as it is already held that it is not case of pure under-reporting. 7.4.4 While disposing appeal

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

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

MELAKANDY PUTHALATH FAROOK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1890/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Melekandy Puthalath Farook Acit बनाम/ Faraz No.9 Sbi Colony, Corporate Circle-2(1) Vs. Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapf-2644-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr

u/s 270A(9)(a). Finally, Ld. AO imposed penalty of Rs.54.10 Lacs. 6. During appellate proceedings, the assessee, inter-alia, submitted that penalty was not mandatory. The two charges viz. under reporting of income and misreporting of income are two different charges. Both expressions could not be used interchangeably. The Ld. AO should arrive at clear charge before levy

N. VIJAY KUMAR, ACIT, CHENNAI vs. RAJAH MUTHIAH CHETTIAR CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue & CO of assessee are

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

270A(9) of the Act, which deals with claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence and recording of any false entry in the books of accounts. The AO has arrived at the above conclusion on the basis of findings in the assessment order, where income admitted by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice

JAYASAKTHI KNIT WEAR,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), TIRUPPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1758/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Jayasakthi Knit Wear, The Ito, 3/95, Thanneerpandal Colony, Ward-1(4), Cheyur Road, Tirupur. Karukkampalayam B.O. Avinashi, Tirupur-641 654. [Pan: Aaffj 4343 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 270A of the Income-tax Act 1961 should not be passed. 3. You are required to submit your reply online electronically in 'e-Proceeding' facility through your account in e-filing website (www.incometax.gov.in) by the midnight (23:59 hours) of 20/04/2022. 4. In case reply is not submitted, the order shall be passed without the benefit of your explanation

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

9) of 1922 Act to include a HUF and a local authority. Unless a firm\ncan be considered as a 'person', section 17(1) of the 1922 Act cannot govern\nthe assessment of the assessee-firm. In the 1961 Act the expression 'person' is\ndefined differently. It is a matter for consideration whether the definition\ncontained in section

KAWARILAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE-1(2) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

270A(9) of the Act, which deals with claim of expenditure not substantiated by any evidence and recording of any false entry in the books of accounts. The AO has arrived at the above conclusion on the basis of findings in the assessment order, where income admitted by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice