INDIA PISTONS LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2207 & 2208/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2004-05. M/S.India Pistons Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Arjay Apex Centre, Of Income Tax, No.24, College Road, Corporate Circle 2(3) Chennai 600 026. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aaaci 1439E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68,754/- under Section 115JB of the Act. Since assessee had international transactions with its Associated Enterprise abroad, ld. Assessing Officer made a reference to the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. Ld. TPO on taking up the transfer pricing analysis noted that assessee had not maintained documents required under Rule 10D of the Income

JCIT, COIMBATORE vs. CHROMA PRINT INDIA PVT . LTD., COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.2083/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Chroma Print India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Tds Range, Vs. P.B. No. 5316, 53, Ganesh Nagar, Coimbatore. G.N. Mills Post, Mtp Road, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaccc6021A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Veni Raj, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Dated 30.03.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In Its Appeal: “1. The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That No Penalty Is Leviable On The Non Deduction Of Tds On Payment Of Labour Charges Worth

273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 6 I.T.A. No.2083/M/16 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section

M.P.SUBRAMANIAM,ERODE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2294 & 2295/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07 Shri M.P. Subramaniam, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, 112/1, Periyar Street, Erode-1. Central Circle – I, Income Tax Office, Pan : Amops 9561 J Race Course Road, Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of `3,36,768/- for the assessment year 2004-05 and for the assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of `67,320/-. 5. As rightly submitted by the Ld. counsel for the assessee, the assessment proceeding and the penalty proceeding are separate and distinct. The Assessing Officer

M.P.SUBRAMANIAM,ERODE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2294 & 2295/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07 Shri M.P. Subramaniam, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, 112/1, Periyar Street, Erode-1. Central Circle – I, Income Tax Office, Pan : Amops 9561 J Race Course Road, Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of `3,36,768/- for the assessment year 2004-05 and for the assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of `67,320/-. 5. As rightly submitted by the Ld. counsel for the assessee, the assessment proceeding and the penalty proceeding are separate and distinct. The Assessing Officer

SHRI JANARDHANAM BALAJI,,THIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, THIRUVALLUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 273B of the Act, if an assessee could prove that the failure to abide by Sec. 269SS and 269T of the Act was for a reasonable cause then levy of penalty u/s.271D and 271E of the Act, could be excused. However, here in the case before us, first explanation of the assessee was that the amounts received were

JANARDHANAM BALAJI,THIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, THIRUVALLUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 273B of the Act, if an assessee could prove that the failure to abide by Sec. 269SS and 269T of the Act was for a reasonable cause then levy of penalty u/s.271D and 271E of the Act, could be excused. However, here in the case before us, first explanation of the assessee was that the amounts received were

SAHANA JEWELLERY EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-3,, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

section 273B of the Act, from filing the audit report within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the Ld.AR prayed for deletion of the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271B of the Act. 8. The Ld.DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities and vehemently supported the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), praying for its confirmation

ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. S.ARUN KUMAR, RAJAPALAYAM

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

273B of I.T. Act 1961 and also failed to establish the business exigency during the course of penalty proceedings before the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax. 4.1 Ld. Departmental Representative had placed reliance on the Judgements of Hon'ble Chennai High Court in the case of Nandhi Dhall Mills reported in (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 97(Madras

AMIT KAPOOR,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account on 08.11.2016 for the release of jewellery, for which, source of the same was explained to his satisfaction. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act by accepting the income viz., assessed income Rs.4,76,901/- + Rs.5,26,386/- (LTCG) + Rs.1,00,000/- (agricultural) by assessment

SAMIAPPAGOUNDER DHARMARAJ,TIRUPUR vs. ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account on 08.11.2016 for the release of jewellery, for which, source of the same was explained to his satisfaction. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act by accepting the income viz., assessed income Rs.4,76,901/- + Rs.5,26,386/- (LTCG) + Rs.1,00,000/- (agricultural) by assessment