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

68,15,120/-, as declared in the return of income furnished\nu/s.153A of the Act, was accepted by the AO without any\nvariation or addition. Consequently, in respect of the said\nreturned income, there was no occasion for initiation of penalty\nproceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.\n13.\nIt was also submitted by the assessee that the deeming\nprovisions

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

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

68,15,120/-, as declared in the return of income furnished\nu/s.153A of the Act, was accepted by the AO without any\nvariation or addition. Consequently, in respect of the said\nreturned income, there was no occasion for initiation of penalty\nproceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.\n13.\nIt was also submitted by the assessee that the deeming\nprovisions

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

68,15,120/-, as declared in the return of income furnished\nu/s.153A of the Act, was accepted by the AO without any\nvariation or addition. Consequently, in respect of the said\nreturned income, there was no occasion for initiation of penalty\nproceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.\n13.\nIt was also submitted by the assessee that the deeming\nprovisions

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

68,15,120/-, as declared in the return of income furnished\nu/s.153A of the Act, was accepted by the AO without any\nvariation or addition. Consequently, in respect of the said\nreturned income, there was no occasion for initiation of penalty\nproceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.\n13.\nIt was also submitted by the assessee that the deeming\nprovisions

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

68,15,120/-, as declared in the return of income furnished\nu/s.153A of the Act, was accepted by the AO without any\nvariation or addition. Consequently, in respect of the said\nreturned income, there was no occasion for initiation of penalty\nproceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.\n13. It was also submitted by the assessee that the deeming\nprovisions

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

68,15,120/-, as declared in the return of income furnished\nu/s.153A of the Act, was accepted by the AO without any\nvariation or addition. Consequently, in respect of the said\nreturned income, there was no occasion for initiation of penalty\nproceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.\n13.\nIt was also submitted by the assessee that the deeming\nprovisions

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

68 for tuition fee, marriage gifts, loans from relatives, and disallowance of deduction u/s 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

68 for tuition fee, marriage gifts, loans from relatives, and disallowance of deduction u/s 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

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D\nto the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of\nincome furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the\nprovisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been paid on\nor before

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D\nto the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of\nincome furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the\nprovisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been paid on\nor before

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D\nto the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of\nincome furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the\nprovisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been paid on\nor before

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)

68-69/2016 dated 21/03/2017 wherein the Court confirmed the finding of the Tribunal holding that no penalty should have been levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for denial of deduction claimed under section 801B(10) of the Act. Secondly, the assessing officer is not correct in making a fresh assessment u/s

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)

68-69/2016 dated 21/03/2017 wherein the Court confirmed the finding of the Tribunal holding that no penalty should have been levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for denial of deduction claimed under section 801B(10) of the Act. Secondly, the assessing officer is not correct in making a fresh assessment u/s

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)

68-69/2016 dated 21/03/2017 wherein the Court confirmed the finding of the Tribunal holding that no penalty should have been levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for denial of deduction claimed under section 801B(10) of the Act. Secondly, the assessing officer is not correct in making a fresh assessment u/s

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)

68-69/2016 dated 21/03/2017 wherein the Court confirmed the finding of the Tribunal holding that no penalty should have been levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for denial of deduction claimed under section 801B(10) of the Act. Secondly, the assessing officer is not correct in making a fresh assessment u/s

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

271(1) is concerned, the AO to record ‘satisfaction’ to levy penalty whereas in section 270A(1), the AO to give ‘direction’ for levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Act.] In this case, the AO has not given any such direction while passing the assessment order on Arusuvai Food Processors Pvt. Ltd. :: 7 :: 31.03.2022, pursuant to which, he levied penalty