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, 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, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The\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

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 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 ld. 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 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

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 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

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

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 is leviable only on undisclosed income and not merely on an admission made by the assessee u/s.132 (4). The assessing officer has miserably failed to quantify the undisclosed income. :: 3 :: 9. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the AO while levying penalty under section 271 AAB failed to follow the specific definition of undisclosed income

SELVARAJ ARPUTHARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-I,, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2029/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2030/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2031/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

271(1)(c) qua addition of Rs.49,51,362/- and Rs.1,87,75,583/- for AY-2013-14 and AY 2014-15 was passed on 25.10.2021. Accordingly, it is abundantly clear that the penalty order dated 25.10.2021 has been hit by limitation prescribed in section 275(1)(a) and cannot survive. Accordingly, the penalty order u/s

SELVARAJ ARPUTHARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-I,, COIMBAOTORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2029/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2030/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2031/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

271(1)(c) qua addition of Rs.49,51,362/- and Rs.1,87,75,583/- for AY-2013-14 and AY 2014-15 was passed on 25.10.2021. Accordingly, it is abundantly clear that the penalty order dated 25.10.2021 has been hit by limitation prescribed in section 275(1)(a) and cannot survive. Accordingly, the penalty order u/s

SELVARAJ ARPUTHARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-I, , COIMBAOTORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2029/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2030/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2031/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

271(1)(c) qua addition of Rs.49,51,362/- and Rs.1,87,75,583/- for AY-2013-14 and AY 2014-15 was passed on 25.10.2021. Accordingly, it is abundantly clear that the penalty order dated 25.10.2021 has been hit by limitation prescribed in section 275(1)(a) and cannot survive. Accordingly, the penalty order u/s

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

51,63,670/-).\n29.\nAggrieved by the order of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal before\nthe Ld.CIT(A), who, deleted the penalty by passing an order dated 20.02.2025 on the\nscore that the assessment order was modified by him and only a sum od\nRs.72,45,018/- was estimated by him as ‘unaccounted business income'. It was also\nheld

SREE NAVALADIAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 147 of the Act. Finally, the AO in the reassessment proceedings assessed the returned income filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act at Rs.40,55,440/-. This addition was accepted by assessee as it is because it was returned income. The AO vide this assessment order initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)© of the Act and recorded

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,SALEM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 147 of the Act. Finally, the AO in the reassessment proceedings assessed the returned income filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act at Rs.40,55,440/-. This addition was accepted by assessee as it is because it was returned income. The AO vide this assessment order initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)© of the Act and recorded

SREENAVALADIAN FINANCE,SALEM vs. DCIT,CENTRALCIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 147 of the Act. Finally, the AO in the reassessment proceedings assessed the returned income filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act at Rs.40,55,440/-. This addition was accepted by assessee as it is because it was returned income. The AO vide this assessment order initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)© of the Act and recorded

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. DCIT, CENT CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 147 of the Act. Finally, the AO in the reassessment proceedings assessed the returned income filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act at Rs.40,55,440/-. This addition was accepted by assessee as it is because it was returned income. The AO vide this assessment order initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)© of the Act and recorded

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

51,63,670/-).\n29.\nAggrieved by the order of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal before\nthe Ld.CIT(A), who, deleted the penalty by passing an order dated 20.02.2025 on the\nscore that the assessment order was modified by him and only a sum od\nRs.72,45,018/- was estimated by him as ‘unaccounted business income'. It was also\nheld

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

51,63,670/-).\n29. Aggrieved by the order of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal before\nthe Ld.CIT(A), who, deleted the penalty by passing an order dated 20.02.2025 on the\nscore that the assessment order was modified by him and only a sum od\nRs.72,45,018/- was estimated by him as ‘unaccounted business income'. It was also\nheld