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)

274 r.w.s. 271D on the ground that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS of the I.T. Act which attracts levy of penalty u/s 271D of the I.T. Act. Before the Hon'ble High Court, the assessee, through the writ petition challenged the penalty levied u/s 271D on the ground that no satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing

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)

274 r.w.s. 271D on the ground that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS of the I.T. Act which attracts levy of penalty u/s 271D of the I.T. Act. Before the Hon'ble High Court, the assessee, through the writ petition challenged the penalty levied u/s 271D on the ground that no satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing

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)

274 r.w.s. 271D on the ground that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS of the I.T. Act which attracts levy of penalty u/s 271D of the I.T. Act. Before the Hon'ble High Court, the assessee, through the writ petition challenged the penalty levied u/s 271D on the ground that no satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing

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

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

274 r.w.s.270A is vogue, non-specific to charge and thus, is illegal and liable to be quashed. Thus, the order passed by the AO imposing penalty under section 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

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

274 r.w.s.270A is vogue, non-specific to charge and thus, is illegal and liable to be quashed. Thus, the order passed by the AO imposing penalty under section 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

M/S ENRICA 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

274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(T)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form, where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned, would not satisfy requirement of law. The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise

M/S.ENRICA 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

274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(T)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form, where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned, would not satisfy requirement of law. The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise

D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

penalty proceedings translates into action only through notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of Income Tax Act. The penalty

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act requires the AO to form\nan opinion regarding the concealment of income or furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income during the course of the assessment\nproceedings. The notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is typically\nissued if the AO is satisfied during the course of assessment that the\ntaxpayer

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act requires the AO to form\nan opinion regarding the concealment of income or furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income during the course of the assessment\nproceedings. The notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is typically\nissued if the AO is satisfied during the course of assessment that the\ntaxpayer

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act requires the AO to form\nan opinion regarding the concealment of income or furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income during the course of the assessment\nproceedings. The notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is typically\nissued if the AO is satisfied during the course of assessment that the\ntaxpayer

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act requires the AO to form\nan opinion regarding the concealment of income or furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income during the course of the assessment\nproceedings. The notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is typically\nissued if the AO is satisfied during the course of assessment that the\ntaxpayer

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act requires the AO to form\nan opinion regarding the concealment of income or furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income during the course of the assessment\nproceedings. The notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is typically\nissued if the AO is satisfied during the course of assessment that the\ntaxpayer

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act requires the AO to form\nan opinion regarding the concealment of income or furnishing of\ninaccurate particulars of income during the course of the assessment\nproceedings. The notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is typically\nissued if the AO is satisfied during the course of assessment that the\ntaxpayer

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

274 r.w.s.270A is vogue, non-specific to charge and\nthus, is illegal and liable to be quashed. Thus, the order passed by the AO\nimposing penalty under section 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

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

274 r.w.s.270A is vogue, non-specific to charge and\nthus, is illegal and liable to be quashed. Thus, the order passed by the AO\nimposing penalty under section 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. SJ SURYAH, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated u/s 274 of the Act or u/s 271 of the Act? 1. Sub-section

SHRI.S.J.SURYAH,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated u/s 274 of the Act or u/s 271 of the Act? 1. Sub-section