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 271AAB of the Act Further, the Ld.DR reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) do not death with the section 292B of the Act at all. Further, this decision only

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

NARENDRA C. MAHER INDL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

271 AAB(1) of the Act and consequently and as a corollary the same is covered by section 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On behalf of assessee, we have heard ld. Senior Counsel, Shri G. Baskar and on behalf of the Revenue, ld. Senior DR, Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

MAHENDRA KANCHANLAL MAHER INDL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1 (3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

271 AAB(1) of the Act and consequently and as a corollary the same is covered by section 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On behalf of assessee, we have heard ld. Senior Counsel, Shri G. Baskar and on behalf of the Revenue, ld. Senior DR, Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

SIDDHARTH N MAHER,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

271 AAB(1) of the Act and consequently and as a corollary the same is covered by section 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On behalf of assessee, we have heard ld. Senior Counsel, Shri G. Baskar and on behalf of the Revenue, ld. Senior DR, Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

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

271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 271AAB of the Act\nFurther, the Ld.DR reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court\nin the case of CIT Vs Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) do not death with\nthe section 292B of the Act at all.\nFurther, this decision only

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

271(1)(c) of\nthe Act, the same principle would equally apply to Section 271AAB of the Act\n:: 38 ::\nFurther, the Ld.DR reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court\nin the case of CIT Vs Kaushalya (1995) 216 ITR 660 (Bom) do not death with\nthe section 292B of the Act at all.\nFurther, this

PRESIDENCY KID LEATHER PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 765/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Presidency Kid Leather Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 21, Spartan Nagar, 1St Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Mogappair East, Chennai 600 037. Corporate Circle 5(2), [Pan:Aaacp1952D] Chennai 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 31.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14 Challenging The Appellate Order Of Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

43,63,543/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, by assessing the loss at ₹.49,82,53,477/- after making various disallowances. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings by issuing notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. After considering the submissions to the above notice, the Assessing Officer levied penalty

MANGAL & MANGAL,TRICHY vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2207/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

43,11,800/- u/s. 271AAB(1)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961, being 10% of total undisclosed income, which should be paid as per demand notice and challan enclosed.” 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) . Before the CIT(A), the assessee has filed detailed written submissions on the issue

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 271D/E, he AO had no satisfaction to Initiate any penalty. 3.1 In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in 98 ITD 200. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below: "21. Another factor that deserves consideration is the requirement of recording of satisfaction in the course

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 271D/E, he AO had no satisfaction to Initiate any penalty. 3.1 In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in 98 ITD 200. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below: "21. Another factor that deserves consideration is the requirement of recording of satisfaction in the course

ROMAA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 271D/E, he AO had no satisfaction to Initiate any penalty. 3.1 In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in 98 ITD 200. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted below: "21. Another factor that deserves consideration is the requirement of recording of satisfaction in the course

M/S. MAHESHWARI BUILDERS,ADYAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-15(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

271, section 271A, 34[section 271AA,] section 271B 34[, section 271BA], 35[section 271BB,] section 271C, M/s. Maheshwari Builders 8 AY: 2014-15 36[section 271CA,] section 271D, section 271E, 37[section 271F, 38[section 271FA,] 39[section 271FB,] 40[section 271G,]] 41[section 271H,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

271 (1) ( c ) on interest income and disallowance u/s 14A . 1.2 The Ld CIT(A) has erred in not providing an iota of reasoning as to how the levy is not attracted in respect of interest income and U/s 14A vide a speaking order. G1.3 For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

271 (1) ( c ) on interest income and disallowance u/s 14A . 1.2 The Ld CIT(A) has erred in not providing an iota of reasoning as to how the levy is not attracted in respect of interest income and U/s 14A vide a speaking order. G1.3 For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

271 (1) ( c ) on interest income and disallowance u/s 14A . 1.2 The Ld CIT(A) has erred in not providing an iota of reasoning as to how the levy is not attracted in respect of interest income and U/s 14A vide a speaking order. G1.3 For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

271 (1) ( c ) on interest income and disallowance u/s 14A . 1.2 The Ld CIT(A) has erred in not providing an iota of reasoning as to how the levy is not attracted in respect of interest income and U/s 14A vide a speaking order. G1.3 For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing

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

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income ITA Nos.889 to 894/Chny/2025 (AYs 2011-12 to 2016-17) M/s. Redington Distribution Pte Ltd. :: 2 :: Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) on the common addition(s) made on account of the profits of the assessee attributed to be taxed in India. With the consent of both