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

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)

274 by without an issuance of the notice is answered as under: 4. Since the law does not mandate specific requirement to issue a notice, the opportunity of being heard can be communicated orally across the table or through a telephonic call or through a letter and all these means adopted duly recorded through an order sheet entry for having

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)

274 by without an issuance of the notice is answered as under: 4. Since the law does not mandate specific requirement to issue a notice, the opportunity of being heard can be communicated orally across the table or through a telephonic call or through a letter and all these means adopted duly recorded through an order sheet entry for having

M.MALARVIZHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.779/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. M. Malarvizhi, The Income Tax Officer, 18, Mettu Theru, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Kumananchavadi, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 056. [Pan:Apjpm2455H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: “1. For That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Chennai U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Herein Without Noting That The Notice Issued By The 2

68,03,570/- was raised. Accordingly demand notice under section 156 penalty show cause notice under section 274

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

274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(T)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form, where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned, would not satisfy requirement of law. The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet

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

274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(T)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form, where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned, would not satisfy requirement of law. The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

MAHALINGAM SUNDARA MOORTHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1682/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mahalingam Sundara Moorthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 602, Srithi Block, Chitra Avenue, Corporate Ward 4(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Afypm5382G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

274 r.w.s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act dated 30.09.2019 for non furnishing of details. The Assessing Officer issued a summon 3 I.T.A. No.1682/Chny/25 under section 131 of the Act dated 21.10.2019 requiring the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer on 25.10.2019, but, however, assessee failed to comply with this summon and submitted partial details. The Assessing Officer

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, 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