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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. SJ SURYAH, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 271(1B) the tax payer cannot take a shelter that he was not aware why the Penalty proceedings have been initiated or was prevented from duly presenting the appellants' defense on the charge made. 6. The Ld.DR is noted to have opposed the contention of the Ld.AR and inte-alia has submitted that the Hon’ble Madras High Court

SHRI.S.J.SURYAH,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 271(1B) the tax payer cannot take a shelter that he was not aware why the Penalty proceedings have been initiated or was prevented from duly presenting the appellants' defense on the charge made. 6. The Ld.DR is noted to have opposed the contention of the Ld.AR and inte-alia has submitted that the Hon’ble Madras High Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. SRI MAHESWARY GRANITES (P) LTD, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3054/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sri Maheswary Granites (P) Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Central Circle – 2, Old No.115, New No.84, Coimbatore Bashyakarlu Road West, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore Pan: Aafcs 9118K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M.C.R. Mohan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026

u/s 271AAB(1) (c). 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com.250 & Commissioner of Income-tax v. SSA'S Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.coт 248 (SC) to render relief to the assessee without taking cognizance of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 :- 5 -: proceedings. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section

PRAKASH CHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 :- 5 -: proceedings. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 :- 5 -: proceedings. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 :- 5 -: proceedings. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not automatic and should not be levied mechanically only because an addition has been made to the income. As per Section

ACHALA PUNJA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

61,31,504/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) be\ndeleted and justice rendered.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed her\nreturn of income for the A.Y.2014-15 u/s.139(1) of the Act on 30.07.2014,\ndeclaring a total income of Rs.49,02,590/-. In the said return, the assessee\nclaimed exemption u/s.54

KEB HANA BANK,CHENNAI vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Reporting Entity are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.440, 441 & 442/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Keb Hana Bank, Vs. The Joint Director Of 4Th Floor, Bannari Amman Towers, Income Tax, Dr.R.K. Salai, Mylapore, Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aadck4261D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Va Mehta, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, All Dated 09.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Passed Under Section 271Faa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Levying Penalty Of ₹.50,000/- For Each Calendar Years 2017, 2018 & 2019. 2

61-B was filed well within the time allowed under section 285BA(4) of the Act and therefore, the penalty is leviable under section 271FAA of the Act. Thus, the ld. Counsel prayed for deleting the penalty levied under section 271FAA of the Act for the Calendar Years 2017, 2018 and 2019. 5. On the other hand

KEB HANA BANK,CHENNAI vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Reporting Entity are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.440, 441 & 442/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Keb Hana Bank, Vs. The Joint Director Of 4Th Floor, Bannari Amman Towers, Income Tax, Dr.R.K. Salai, Mylapore, Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aadck4261D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Va Mehta, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, All Dated 09.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Passed Under Section 271Faa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Levying Penalty Of ₹.50,000/- For Each Calendar Years 2017, 2018 & 2019. 2

61-B was filed well within the time allowed under section 285BA(4) of the Act and therefore, the penalty is leviable under section 271FAA of the Act. Thus, the ld. Counsel prayed for deleting the penalty levied under section 271FAA of the Act for the Calendar Years 2017, 2018 and 2019. 5. On the other hand

KEB HANA BANK,CHENNAI vs. JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Reporting Entity are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.440, 441 & 442/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Keb Hana Bank, Vs. The Joint Director Of 4Th Floor, Bannari Amman Towers, Income Tax, Dr.R.K. Salai, Mylapore, Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 004. Chennai. [Pan:Aadck4261D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Va Mehta, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, All Dated 09.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Passed Under Section 271Faa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Levying Penalty Of ₹.50,000/- For Each Calendar Years 2017, 2018 & 2019. 2

61-B was filed well within the time allowed under section 285BA(4) of the Act and therefore, the penalty is leviable under section 271FAA of the Act. Thus, the ld. Counsel prayed for deleting the penalty levied under section 271FAA of the Act for the Calendar Years 2017, 2018 and 2019. 5. On the other hand