ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. SRI MAHESWARY GRANITES (P) LTD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3054/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sri Maheswary Granites (P) Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Central Circle – 2, Old No.115, New No.84, Coimbatore Bashyakarlu Road West, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore Pan: Aafcs 9118K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

271 and not 271AAB. In this respect, the copy of notice has been produced by the Ld. A.R. before me. It is seen that the Ld. A.R. is correct in observing that the section of penalty has not been correctly mentioned by the AO in the caption. However, the AO will get the benefit of section 292BB of the Income

THE TAMILNADU CIRCLE POSTAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. (1031),,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-12(1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3002/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. The Tamilnadu Circle Postal Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Cooperative Bank Ltd. (1031), Income Tax, 18/19, Postal Bank, Jahangir Street, Non Corporate Circle 12(1), Second Line Beach, Chennai 600 001. Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaaat4900D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Rajagopalan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.08.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 Challenging Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

u/s 36(i)(viia) does not applicable to the assessee- Bank ". Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued for calling details in support of the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. After examining the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee has made provision for Bad & Doubtful

SHEIKH KUTBUDDIN HABIB,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

Section 271(1)(c) . In so far as the assessment year in appeal, in view of the appellant's failure to file the return even belatedly, it is understood that the income liable to tax and. offered in the return in compliance to notice u/s 148 has not been voluntarily offered to tax as per provisions of the Act. After

SHEIKH KUTBUDDIN HABIB,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

Section 271(1)(c) . In so far as the assessment year in appeal, in view of the appellant's failure to file the return even belatedly, it is understood that the income liable to tax and. offered in the return in compliance to notice u/s 148 has not been voluntarily offered to tax as per provisions of the Act. After

P. KALAISELVI ,POLUR vs. ACIT , VELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.984/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ms.Palani Kalai Selvi, The Asst. Commissioner – No.2A, Old No.7, Of Income Tax, Abdul Sukkur St., Circle-1, Polur-606 608. Vellore. [Pan: Bcapk 5385 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2023

292 ITR 411 (KAR) (delay of 1 year) -ACIT vs Kamadhenu food products 70 TTJ 720 (Pune) (delay of 41/2 months) holding that marginal delays in filing the audit report (appellant's delay 4.75 months), should not be visited with a penalty u/s 271B. 2.10 The AO misdirected himself by ignoring the decisions that Sec.44AB was only 'directory1

DAKSHINAMOORTHY KUMARESAN,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

u/s 147 of the Act dated 25.05.2023, the Id. Assessing Officer stated that penalty proceedings u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act is initiated separately as it is evidenced that the assessee has 'concealed his particulars of income' by not filing his return of income voluntarily for A.Y. 2016- 2017 as required u/s.139(1) of the Act. 7. Penalty is imposed

M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT , INTL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

u/s 271 (1) (c). Accordingly, ground no’s 6 and 7 are dismissed.” 11. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Senior Counsel Shri. Percy Pardiwala pointed out that, the impugned issue under dispute was not settled on merits through an appeal route but rather through

M/S.REDINGTON DISTRIBUTORS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

u/s 271 (1) (c). Accordingly, ground no’s 6 and 7 are dismissed.” 11. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Senior Counsel Shri. Percy Pardiwala pointed out that, the impugned issue under dispute was not settled on merits through an appeal route but rather through

M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

u/s 271 (1) (c). Accordingly, ground no’s 6 and 7 are dismissed.” 11. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Senior Counsel Shri. Percy Pardiwala pointed out that, the impugned issue under dispute was not settled on merits through an appeal route but rather through

M/S.REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTLTAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

u/s 271 (1) (c). Accordingly, ground no’s 6 and 7 are dismissed.” 11. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Senior Counsel Shri. Percy Pardiwala pointed out that, the impugned issue under dispute was not settled on merits through an appeal route but rather through

M/S.REDINGTON DISTRIBUTIONS PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, INTLTAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

u/s 271 (1) (c). Accordingly, ground no’s 6 and 7 are dismissed.” 11. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Senior Counsel Shri. Percy Pardiwala pointed out that, the impugned issue under dispute was not settled on merits through an appeal route but rather through

M/S.REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT,INTL TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

u/s 271 (1) (c). Accordingly, ground no’s 6 and 7 are dismissed.” 11. Now, the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. Assailing the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Senior Counsel Shri. Percy Pardiwala pointed out that, the impugned issue under dispute was not settled on merits through an appeal route but rather through

N.BASKAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 16, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri, M. Balaganesh

292/-. The assessee had executed the sale deed in the capacity of power of attorney holder in favour of M/s VGN Homes Pvt Ltd vide registered sale deed on 7.12.2010. In the said sale deed, under the consideration column, it was mentioned that the consideration had been duly paid by the buyer of the land. But assessee pleaded that

V.K.C.JAYAMOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

u/s 274 read with sec 271 (c) Of the Income tax Act 1961-Reg. With reference to the above I wish to submit the following for your consideration. I have not willfully concealed the particulars of Income. Or furnished inaccurate particulars of Income etc., for the above said Assessment Year. ITA No.1876 /chny/2017 :- 6 -: I believed that my accountant

P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13. Shri. P. Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig Adyar Apartments, Non Corporate Ward 3(3) Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Circular Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Abbps 1019H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

292 ITR 29. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) disposed of the appeal considering the submissions of the assessee and took a view that assessee’s case did not fit in any of the clauses of Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. Aaccording to him, judgment of Apex Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh (supra

P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13. Shri. P. Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig Adyar Apartments, Non Corporate Ward 3(3) Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Circular Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Abbps 1019H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

292 ITR 29. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) disposed of the appeal considering the submissions of the assessee and took a view that assessee’s case did not fit in any of the clauses of Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. Aaccording to him, judgment of Apex Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh (supra

R.VASUKI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

292 (Pat)(FB), to name some. The ld. counsel, adducing a copy of the notice u/s. 274 dated 07.02.2014, argued before us that the penalty could not be levied in-as-much as the notice does not spell out as to whether the penalty proceedings were initiated in respect of concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars

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