DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference to penalty u/s

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference to penalty u/s

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The abovementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered with reference to penalty u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the\nCross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 and no\nsatisfaction was recorded to initiate penalty proceedings under Section\n271D.\n11. The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by\nthe decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City\n(supra). The notice issued under Section 271E and the proceedings in\npursuance thereto

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

271E may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore, cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 275 cannot be attracted to such proceedings. If that were not so cl. (c) of s. 275(1) would be redundant because otherwise as a matter of fact every penalty proceeding is usually initiated

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

271E may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore, cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 275 cannot be attracted to such proceedings. If that were not so cl. (c) of s. 275(1) would be redundant because otherwise as a matter of fact every penalty proceeding is usually initiated

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

271E may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore, cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 275 cannot be attracted to such proceedings. If that were not so cl. (c) of s. 275(1) would be redundant because otherwise as a matter of fact every penalty proceeding is usually initiated

SRI SANKARANARAYANAN KRISHNAMOORTHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO-1(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 8. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Sirnivasa Reddy Reddeppagari (supra) while deciding similar legal issue regarding levy of penalty u/s

M/S. SHRI SHI vs. HAKTHI FOUNDATIONS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE-3,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 5. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Sirnivasa Reddy Reddeppagari (supra) while deciding similar legal issue regarding levy of penalty u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE- vs. AKMG ALLOYS PRIVATE LTD.,, DINDIGUL

In the result, Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 8. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Sirnivasa Reddy Reddeppagari (supra) held as under: CO No.12/Chny/2024 (AY 2015-16) M/s. AKMG Alloys

MUTHUSAMY NAGARAJ,ERODE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERODE RANGE ERODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 8. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Sirnivasa Reddy Reddeppagari (supra) held as under: While disposing off the writ filed against

SILUVAIKANI CHELLIAH,CHENGALPATTU vs. ITO, NCW-22(6),, TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

u/s 271D for violating section 269SS held as under: “22. From an analysis of Sections 271D and 271E of the Act, it is seen that both the provisions are pari materia to each other. While Section 271D of the Act would be attracted on a person accepting loan or deposit or specified sum in contravention of Section 269SS

AA522 KUNNATHUR VELAMPALAYAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,TIRUPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2) TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3133/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act for the reason that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued. The A.O passed AA522 Kunnathur Velampalayam Primary Agricultural Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. :- 3 -: the penalty order levying a penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.10,000/- for each of the default). Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before

SHRI SAI BALAJI GAS CYLINDERS P. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT(OSD), CORPORATE CIRLCE-6,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

u/s 271 E and hence the same is illegal and liable to be quashed ab initio. 3.2 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s.271 E to the tune of Rs.58,43,890/-. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the provisions of Section 269T does not have any application to the facts of the present

SHRI SAI BALAJI GAS CYLINDERS P. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT(OSD), CORPORATE CIRLCE-6,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

u/s 271 E and hence the same is illegal and liable to be quashed ab initio. 3.2 The CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s.271 E to the tune of Rs.58,43,890/-. 3.3 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the provisions of Section 269T does not have any application to the facts of the present

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

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being