PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

u/s 271(1)(c) since the same proceeds only on a different interpretation of the statutory position . 6. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have noted that the quantum of Royalty as well as the manner of computation thereof had been estimated by various officer of the department and this estimation cannot be the basis of the levy

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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 that

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

63 ITR 638 (SC), wherein it was clarified that a mistake in the notice does not invalidate the penalty proceedings, it was held that even granting that the notice u/s. 274 was defective or bad in law, the penalty proceedings would not fail as no prejudice had been caused to the assessee; all that is required is that the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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

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 that

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

63,341/-. The Assessing officer while completing the said regular assessment has not initiated any penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The matter came before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the ITAT has passed order on 10/02/2022 in ITA Nos. 2478/Chny/2017, 2703/Chny/2018, 558 & 559/Chny/2020 holding that the interest on staff advance and interest

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

63,341/-. The Assessing officer while completing the said regular assessment has not initiated any penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The matter came before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the ITAT has passed order on 10/02/2022 in ITA Nos. 2478/Chny/2017, 2703/Chny/2018, 558 & 559/Chny/2020 holding that the interest on staff advance and interest

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPOLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

63,341/-. The Assessing officer while completing the said regular assessment has not initiated any penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The matter came before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the ITAT has passed order on 10/02/2022 in ITA Nos. 2478/Chny/2017, 2703/Chny/2018, 558 & 559/Chny/2020 holding that the interest on staff advance and interest

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

63,341/-. The Assessing officer while completing the said regular assessment has not initiated any penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The matter came before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the ITAT has passed order on 10/02/2022 in ITA Nos. 2478/Chny/2017, 2703/Chny/2018, 558 & 559/Chny/2020 holding that the interest on staff advance and interest

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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

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 that

P. KALAISELVI ,POLUR vs. ACIT , VELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.984/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ms.Palani Kalai Selvi, The Asst. Commissioner – No.2A, Old No.7, Of Income Tax, Abdul Sukkur St., Circle-1, Polur-606 608. Vellore. [Pan: Bcapk 5385 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2023

271 B. From the facts of case it is seen that the AO has imposed penalty u/s 271B for failure of not filing audit report within specified time. 4.3 Brief facts as noted from the penalty order u/s.271B is that the appellant is the dealer in tractor and agro implements and has admitted the business income from the same

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFILLIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section