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

section 132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A

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

section 132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A

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

section 132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A

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

section 132(4) at Rs.15 lacs\nand requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld.\nAO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. S & P FOUNDATION P. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2084/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. S & P Foundation P. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle Iv(2), Vs. Old No. 27, New No. 38, Madley Road, 46, Nungambakkam High Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaics0224K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Shri I Dinesh, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 02.12.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai, Dated 05.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07 In Pursuance To The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, on the additional income of ₹.1,58,98,570/-. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the explanation 5A to the section

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

Section 273B of the Act. We find that the Ld. CIT (A) had looked into irrelevant circumstances for deleting the levy of penalty in the instant case forgetting the fact that the levy of penalty u/s. 271AAB of the Act is automatic in nature as per the plain reading of the provisions of the Act. Hence, we hold that

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

271 AAB failed to follow the specific definition of undisclosed income provided in Section 271AAB, being penal provision and that the same is required to be strictly construed in light of satisfaction of conditions specified therein. 10. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that appellant has admitted a consolidated sum of Rs. 113.99 Crores over the Financial Years

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI vs. RICH INDIA HOUSING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such satisfaction is mandatory as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of SAS Pharmaceuticals (335 ITYR 259). The Supreme Court has also dismissed the SLP filed by the department on 5/8/2016 and confirmed the view of the Delhi High Court. The penalty

KRISHNAPPA GOWDER KALYANASUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 2.2 In response to penalty show-cause notice, the assessee opposed levy of penalty on the ground that there was no concealment of income. However, Ld. AO held that some loose sheets were found during search which had details of loans advanced by the assessee. These loans were not disclosed in the regular

KRISHNAPPA GOWDER KALYANASUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 2.2 In response to penalty show-cause notice, the assessee opposed levy of penalty on the ground that there was no concealment of income. However, Ld. AO held that some loose sheets were found during search which had details of loans advanced by the assessee. These loans were not disclosed in the regular

SURABI BULLION,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 271(1)(c). 6. The only question therefore that arises is as to the basis of the dropping of the penalty proceedings, after initiating the same, by the AO, and for which we find no reason in his order dropping penalty, which is by way of an order sheet entry dated 14.10.2014 (copy on record). This also stands emphasized

PALLADAM KRISHNASAMY GANESHWAR,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1221/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Palladam Krishnasamy Ganeshwar Dcit बनाम/ 21, Shri Ganesa Textiles, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Vs. Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adfpg-6476-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

5A to Sec. 271(1)(c) which provide that such admission would be deemed concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Finally, the impugned penalty was levied on the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. From the facts, it is undisputed fact that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

u/s 153C of the Act, then no penalty is leviable. The Hon'ble High Court held that Explanation 5A to Section 271

BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and\nappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

271). In the instant case, it was held\nthat in case of an abated assessment year, the return originally filed u/s\n139 of the Act stands replaced by the return of income u/s 153A of the\nAct. The AO is therefore required to conduct the assessment for such\nabated AY taking into account the return as filed u/s 153A