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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KEMIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

u/s 271(1)(c) did not specify the exact charge i.e., concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars income, it was seen that assessment proceedings were concluded after detailed discussion with the assessee. The assessee was in real estate business and it would be too far-fetched to believe that income from transfer of land was claimed as exempt

C.ELANGO,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 271(1) is applicable to the assessee. In penalty proceedings, the Ld. AR of the assessee filed detailed reply to show cause notice and explained that the assessee has sold land and net consideration is invested in construction of Residential house and claimed exemption u/s. 54F

SHRI R. VASUDEVAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1730/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13

54F of the Act. The A.O has called the details of the purchased property. After examining the sale deed, the A.O noticed that the house purchased by the assessee is not a residential house and it is only for the purpose of for running the industry and other connected activities and therefore, the very nature of the property purchased

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

54F automatically stand deleted. Having held so, we refrain from going into the merits of individual additions. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C being consequential, and initiation of penalty u/s 271

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

54F automatically stand deleted. Having held so, we refrain from going into the merits of individual additions. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C being consequential, and initiation of penalty u/s 271

RAMESH K.B.MENON,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 07.05.2012. The Ld. AO considered the findings in the assessment proceedings and the facts being the assessee has paid capital gains tax liability Rs.16,08,610/- on 21.11.2011 including interest before the completion of the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AO perused

MOHAMED AKBAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-10(3), CHENNAI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymohamed Akbar, I.T.O., 2/2 1St St., Gf, Apt No. 2, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 10(3), Jamalia Perambur High Road, Chennai. Chennai-12 Pan No. Afepa 3815 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.” The Assessing Officer also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) (191 Taxman 4 ITA1909/Chny/2025 Mohamed Akbar Vs ITO 179 (Delhi) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India

HITESH KUMAR PRITHVIRAJ KAWAD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,NON-CORPORTEN CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds of appeal at any time before, or at the time of, hearing of the appeal. :-3-: ITA. No:352 /Chny/2024 3. The assessee is an individual and during the impugned year

RAGHUPATHY GOWTHAM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 16(3), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

54F of the Act of Rs.20,00,000/-. 6. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the AD to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the above enhancement. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining to levy of interest u/s 234A in consequence