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

32,50,000/- from its employees\nand known people during the assessment year under\nconsideration. In this connection, sworn depositions were\nrecorded from Shri P. Suresh Kumar, Purchase Manager, and Smt.\nVasanthi, Cashier, wherein they deposed that the management\nhad provided cash to employees and other associated persons of\nthe group, who, in turn, remitted the amounts to the Trust

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

32,50,000/- from its employees\nand known people during the assessment year under\nconsideration. In this connection, sworn depositions were\nrecorded from Shri P. Suresh Kumar, Purchase Manager, and Smt.\nVasanthi, Cashier, wherein they deposed that the management\nhad provided cash to employees and other associated persons of\nthe group, who, in turn, remitted the amounts to the Trust

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

32,50,000/- from its employees\nand known people during the assessment year under\nconsideration. In this connection, sworn depositions were\nrecorded from Shri P. Suresh Kumar, Purchase Manager, and Smt.\nVasanthi, Cashier, wherein they deposed that the management\nhad provided cash to employees and other associated persons of\nthe group, who, in turn, remitted the amounts to the Trust

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

32,50,000/- from its employees\nand known people during the assessment year under\nconsideration. In this connection, sworn depositions were\nrecorded from Shri P. Suresh Kumar, Purchase Manager, and Smt.\nVasanthi, Cashier, wherein they deposed that the management\nhad provided cash to employees and other associated persons of\nthe group, who, in turn, remitted the amounts to the Trust

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 270A of the Act d) No prejudice Caused to the assessee The Ld.DR submitted that prejudice has been caused to the assessee, as the assessee was given opportunity of being heard. Our Submission When the impugned penalty notice is invalid, the entire proceedings gets vitiated

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 270A of the Act d) No prejudice Caused to the assessee The Ld.DR submitted that prejudice has been caused to the assessee, as the assessee was given opportunity of being heard. Our Submission When the impugned penalty notice is invalid, the entire proceedings gets vitiated

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

section 69 by the Assessing Authority. Instead, he sustained additions under new grounds of under valuation of the closing stock. However, the Assessing Authority, in the penalty proceedings, took note of the Appellate order and suitably amended the penalty proceedings and proceeded further in the matter and then imposed penalty. Therefore, it is clear, that the subject matter

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

section 69 by the Assessing Authority. Instead, he sustained additions under new grounds of under valuation of the closing stock. However, the Assessing Authority, in the penalty proceedings, took note of the Appellate order and suitably amended the penalty proceedings and proceeded further in the matter and then imposed penalty. Therefore, it is clear, that the subject matter

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking-off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non- application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even

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

32 ::\niii) The Learned AO has levied penalty under Section 271AAB(1A) in his\npenalty order without issuing any notice for levying such penalty.\n3.2 Further, even if your Honour confirm the penalty, it is hereby reiterated\nthat there is no 'undisclosed' income since the assessee has provided bona-fide\nexplanation and also offered the same vide the ROI filed

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

32 ::\n(i) in the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section\n132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such\nincome has been derived;\n(ii) substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived;\nand\n(iii) on or before the specified date-\n(A) pays

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act or not ? On perusal of the SCN dated 30.03.2005, we note that both the faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are given therein i.e. “the assessee have concealed the particulars of his income” or “furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. In other words, the AO has put to notice

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)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act or not ? On perusal of the SCN dated 30.03.2005, we note that both the faults specified in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are given therein i.e. “the assessee have concealed the particulars of his income” or “furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. In other words, the AO has put to notice

R V R NAGESH LEGAL HEIR OF LATE VENGATTARAYALU RAJAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD - 22(4), TAMBARAM, TAMBARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was\na vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge for which the\nassessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of\nmind while initiating penalty against the assessee. The Ld. AO, while initiating the\npenalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

M.ARUN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-2(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Chny/2021 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2008-09

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 on 31.12.2010 is a vague notice in a printed form without striking- off irrelevant portion and do not specify the exact charge for each head of addition for which the assessee was being penalized and therefore, it was a clear case of non-application of mind while initiating penalty against the assessee. Even in the body

M. VELUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

P. KARUNANITHI,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

K. SADASIVAM,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri