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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

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 Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23. Aggrieved by the order

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the 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

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 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

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

penalty notice is vague and not specific, it is a\n\"Jurisdictional defect\", which goes to the root of the matter, which cannot be\ncured by section 292B of the Act.\n:: 37 ::\nFor this proposition, we place our reliance on the jurisdictional decisions of the\nHon'ble ITAT\nIn the case of PVP Ventures Ltd Vs DCIT dated

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

37 ::\n•\nHon'ble ITAT Chennai\n1199/CHNY/2017 dated 05-04-2018\nDCIT Vs R Elangovan\nITA No.\n1199/CHNY/2017 dated 05-04-2018\n•\nHon'ble ITAT Chandigarh\nNo.398/CHD/2023 dated 05-06-2024\nHappy Steel Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT ITA\n•\nHon'ble ITAT- Delhi Jaina Marketing & Associates Vs DCIT [2024]\n162 taxmann.com 439 (Delhi - Trib.)\n•\nHon'ble ITAT- Pune

M/S ENRICE ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible

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/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

37,808/-claimed u/s 10A of the Act and thereby levied penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.30,71,950/-being 100% of the tax sought to\nbe evaded. Aggrieved, assessee is noted to have filed appeal before Ld\nCIT(A), who by passing the impugned order has confirmed the penalty.\nAggrieved, the assessee-company is before this Tribunal

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

37,808/-claimed u/s 10A of the Act and thereby levied penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.30,71,950/-being 100% of the tax sought to\nbe evaded. Aggrieved, assessee is noted to have filed appeal before Ld\nCIT(A), who by passing the impugned order has confirmed the penalty.\nAggrieved, the assessee-company is before this Tribunal

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

37,50,000 was purchased by the assessee during the AY 2015-16\nThe yearwise movable assets detail furnished by the appellant mother before the\nAO is as follows\nAssets\nJewellery\nDiamond

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

37,808/-claimed u/s 10A of the Act and thereby levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.30,71,950/-being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. Aggrieved, assessee is noted to have filed appeal before Ld ITA Nos.2741 to 2743/Chny/2025 (AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11) M/s. RR Industries Ltd. :: 4 :: CIT(A), who by passing