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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by Id. CIT (A) by\nconsidering the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK\nData Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

35 :: d. Search Context and Legislative Intent • Section 271AAB was introduced to penalize undisclosed income discovered during searches. The assessee concealed capitation fees, failed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a). • The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate. Invalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat

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

35 :: d. Search Context and Legislative Intent • Section 271AAB was introduced to penalize undisclosed income discovered during searches. The assessee concealed capitation fees, failed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a). • The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate. Invalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge 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. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271 was a vague notice in a printed form without specifying the exact charge 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. The Ld. AO, while initiating the penalty was not clear as to specific limb which was applicable

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

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

section 271. (M. RAJASEKHAR IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 34. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 4.3 Though the assessee opposed penalty, however, Ld. AO found it fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and accordingly, a penalty of Rs.5.50 Lacs was proposed in penalty order dated 25.03.2014 by observing as under

R.MAHALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 17(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3106/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, Smt. R. Mahalakshmi, No.24, Abm Avenue, Non-Corporate Circle – 17(1), Chennai. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Agqpm8406N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

35,016/- and passed order dated 27.06.2011. 4. Aggrieved by the order of penalty the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). In the appellant proceedings, the Ld. AR of the assessee argued that the Ld. AO erred in levying penalty as the assessee has offered Rs. 1,52,19,000/- in Return of income filed in compliance