DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

loss of Rs.(-) 66,45,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2017 after making addition towards unexplained interest paid/unexplained cash expenses. Against the same, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 15.03.2021, intimated to the appropriate authority that

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

loss of Rs.(-) 66,45,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2017 after making addition towards unexplained interest paid/unexplained cash expenses. Against the same, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 15.03.2021, intimated to the appropriate authority that

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

loss of Rs.(-) 66,45,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2017 after making addition towards unexplained interest paid/unexplained cash expenses. Against the same, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 15.03.2021, intimated to the appropriate authority that

D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 and thus concluded in Para 180 and 181 as under: "180. One course of action before us is curing a defect in the notice by referring to the assessment order, which may or may not contain reasons for the penalty proceedings. The other course of action is the prevention of defect in the notice

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

loss account was redrawn after revaluation of opening and closing stock, including excess stock found during the course of search, which resulted in undervaluation of stock of Rs. 18,30,77,920/-. The assessee firm has admitted undeclared :-5-: ITA. No: 2207/Chny/2019 income towards undervaluation of stock and agreed to pay tax. 4. Consequent to search, the assessment has been

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)

setting aside two issues (infra) back to the file of AO for fresh consideration, directed deletion of those penalties levied on these additions i.e. (i) outstanding payment due to the tune of Rs.34,13,386/-, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the same. (ii) Rs.30 lakhs which was added as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act; and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed penalty

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)

setting aside two issues (infra) back to the file of AO for fresh consideration, directed deletion of those penalties levied on these additions i.e. (i) outstanding payment due to the tune of Rs.34,13,386/-, the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the same. (ii) Rs.30 lakhs which was added as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act; and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed penalty

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

loss to the Revenue. Therefore, the Assessing Officer opined that admission of additional income and payment of taxes does not absorb the assessee from penalty proceedings. Therefore, rejected arguments of the assessee and levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, amounting to Rs.5,67,22,512/- which is equivalent to 100% tax sought to be adopted. The relevant findings

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

loss to the Revenue. Therefore, the Assessing Officer opined that admission of additional income and payment of taxes does not absorb the assessee from penalty proceedings. Therefore, rejected arguments of the assessee and levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, amounting to Rs.5,67,22,512/- which is equivalent to 100% tax sought to be adopted. The relevant findings

MUTHUSAMY SAKTHIVEL,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1486/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1487/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14

271(1)(c ) qua the quantum addition made in ITA No.1486. Accordingly, both the appeals were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order. We will take up appeal vide ITA No.1486 first as the penalty order is resting upon the same. 4.0 The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that all its grounds of appeal are regarding

MUTHUSAMY SAKTHIVEL,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1486/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1487/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14

271(1)(c ) qua the quantum addition made in ITA No.1486. Accordingly, both the appeals were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order. We will take up appeal vide ITA No.1486 first as the penalty order is resting upon the same. 4.0 The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that all its grounds of appeal are regarding

M/S. OCEANIC INFRASTRUCTURE PARK PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1629/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17

loss of Rs.68,940/-. The Ld.AO made an addition of Rs.46,60,519/- pertaining to sales promotion expenses u/s 37(1). Page 21 of the paper book filed by the assesse clearly shows that in the computation of income the assesse had clearly added back Rs.46,60,519/- shown as business development expenses u/s 37(1). The order

POWER SECURITY CORP. PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-5(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1947/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Power Security Corp Private V. Corporate Ward 5(2), Ltd., Chennai. New No.18, Old No.22, Lake Area, 1St Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagcp 2703C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

loss, the company is dissolved w.e.f. 05.07.2017. The Ex director of the company also submitted that the assessee is bonafide. The assessee relied the judgment of CIT vs. G.R. Rajendran & Anr. (259 ITR 109) (Mad). The reply of the assessee has been :-4-: ITA. No: 1947/Chny/2024 duly perused and not found tenable. The reliance of the case is also

M/S ENRICE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

loss admitted by the appellant Rs.13,23,64,515/- has been accepted. X= Tax on {under-reported income plus amount determined vide 143(1) order) Y= Tax on amount determined vide 143(1) order Hence, tax payable u/s 270A (10)(c) r.w.s 270A (3) should have been calculated by AO before levying penalty

M/S ENRIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

loss admitted by the appellant Rs.13,23,64,515/- has been accepted. X= Tax on {under-reported income plus amount determined vide 143(1) order) Y= Tax on amount determined vide 143(1) order Hence, tax payable u/s 270A (10)(c) r.w.s 270A (3) should have been calculated by AO before levying penalty

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds. The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.” - 5 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 4. Ground

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds. The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.” - 5 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 4. Ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\n\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n\n-5-\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

penalty\nproceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn't require\nany