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

50%, it indicates that the proceedings have been initiated for “Under- reporting of income”. Our Submission The Ld. DR has failed to appreciate that the issue is whether the Ld. AO was required to indicate the limb of the section specifying the charge, while initiating the penalty proceedings and issuing the notice under section 270A of the Act dated

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the\nCross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Section 271- E\nbeyond 30th June 2008, the Additional CIT defeated the very object of\nSection 275 (1) (c).\n12. In that view of the matter, the order of the CIT (A) which has been\naffirmed by the impugned order of the ITAT does not suffer from any legal\ninfirmity.\n13. No substantial question of law arises for determination

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(1)(c) and for under reporting u/s 270A, by way of clause(a) of sub-section (6). Thus, it 271AAB and 271AAC. The words 'may' is used in these sections to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to facilitate the assessee to submit its case, if it does not fall under the criteria mentioned

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(1)(c) and for under reporting u/s 270A, by way of clause(a) of sub-section (6). Thus, it 271AAB and 271AAC. The words 'may' is used in these sections to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to facilitate the assessee to submit its case, if it does not fall under the criteria mentioned

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(1)(c) and for under reporting u/s 270A, by way of clause(a) of sub-section (6). Thus, it 271AAB and 271AAC. The words 'may' is used in these sections to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee to facilitate the assessee to submit its case, if it does not fall under the criteria mentioned

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

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

u/s 132 of the Act,\nunearthed unaccounted cash transactions, which warrants penalty of 60%.\nInvalidating the notice on technical issue, would defeat the intent of the\nlegislature.\ne) Holistic Interpretation of the Notice\nThe Ld. DR submitted that the notice must be read in conjunction with the\nassessment order, penalty order and search proceedings.\nf) Assessee's Conduct Warrants Penalty

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

50,000/- at a later date. Additionally, vide a plain paper\ndocument dated 24.09.2014, he acknowledged having received\nanother Rs.5,00,000/- in cash.\n6.\nBased on the aforesaid seized documents, the AO initiated\nproceedings u/s.153A of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16 by issuing\nnotice dated 10.12.2021. In compliance, the assessee filed return\nof income on 07.03.2022 declaring

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

50,000/- at a later date. Additionally, vide a plain paper\ndocument dated 24.09.2014, he acknowledged having received\nanother Rs.5,00,000/- in cash.\n6.\nBased on the aforesaid seized documents, the AO initiated\nproceedings u/s.153A of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16 by issuing\nnotice dated 10.12.2021. In compliance, the assessee filed return\nof income on 07.03.2022 declaring

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

50,000/- at a later date. Additionally, vide a plain paper\ndocument dated 24.09.2014, he acknowledged having received\nanother Rs.5,00,000/- in cash.\n6.\nBased on the aforesaid seized documents, the AO initiated\nproceedings u/s.153A of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16 by issuing\nnotice dated 10.12.2021. In compliance, the assessee filed return\nof income on 07.03.2022 declaring

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

50,000/- at a later date. Additionally, vide a plain paper\ndocument dated 24.09.2014, he acknowledged having received\nanother Rs.5,00,000/- in cash.\n6.\nBased on the aforesaid seized documents, the AO initiated\nproceedings u/s.153A of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16 by issuing\nnotice dated 10.12.2021. In compliance, the assessee filed return\nof income on 07.03.2022 declaring

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

50,000/- at a later date. Additionally, vide a plain paper\ndocument dated 24.09.2014, he acknowledged having received\nanother Rs.5,00,000/- in cash.\n6. Based on the aforesaid seized documents, the AO initiated\nproceedings u/s.153A of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16 by issuing\nnotice dated 10.12.2021. In compliance, the assessee filed return\nof income on 07.03.2022 declaring

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

50,000/- at a later date. Additionally, vide a plain paper\ndocument dated 24.09.2014, he acknowledged having received\nanother Rs.5,00,000/- in cash.\n6.\nBased on the aforesaid seized documents, the AO initiated\nproceedings u/s.153A of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16 by issuing\nnotice dated 10.12.2021. In compliance, the assessee filed return\nof income on 07.03.2022 declaring

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

50,000/- from M/s. Gem Enterprises, Chennai and Rs.1,34,075/- from M/s. Cable Corporation of India, Mumbai. The total commission so received was Rs.1,57,40,421/-. 8. The father-assessee also claimed that he had paid commissions to six different entities to the total tune of Rs.1,40,95,000/-. When notices were issued to all those

D.SRINIVAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

50,000/- from M/s. Gem Enterprises, Chennai and Rs.1,34,075/- from M/s. Cable Corporation of India, Mumbai. The total commission so received was Rs.1,57,40,421/-. 8. The father-assessee also claimed that he had paid commissions to six different entities to the total tune of Rs.1,40,95,000/-. When notices were issued to all those

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

50,000/- from M/s. Gem Enterprises, Chennai and Rs.1,34,075/- from M/s. Cable Corporation of India, Mumbai. The total commission so received was Rs.1,57,40,421/-. 8. The father-assessee also claimed that he had paid commissions to six different entities to the total tune of Rs.1,40,95,000/-. When notices were issued to all those

D.SRINIVAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

50,000/- from M/s. Gem Enterprises, Chennai and Rs.1,34,075/- from M/s. Cable Corporation of India, Mumbai. The total commission so received was Rs.1,57,40,421/-. 8. The father-assessee also claimed that he had paid commissions to six different entities to the total tune of Rs.1,40,95,000/-. When notices were issued to all those