PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2024 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of V. 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate %&थ$कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri R. Clement Ramesh : Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 :

disallowances under Section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be Section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be Section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be ‘misreporting’. held to be ‘misreporting’. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even

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

disallowances under Section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be ‘misreporting’. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A

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

disallowances under Section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be ‘misreporting’. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A

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

270A of the\nAct, which speaks about failure to record investment in the books\nof accounts. In our considered view, it is not a case of any\ninvestment which is not recorded in the books of accounts.\nTherefore, said Clause is not applicable. In our considered view,\nthe AO is completely erred in invoking said section and levied\npenalty u/s.270A

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

270A of the\nAct, which speaks about failure to record investment in the books\nof accounts. In our considered view, it is not a case of any\ninvestment which is not recorded in the books of accounts.\nTherefore, said Clause is not applicable. In our considered view,\nthe AO is completely erred in invoking said section and levied\npenalty u/s.270A

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

270A of the\nAct, which speaks about failure to record investment in the books\nof accounts. In our considered view, it is not a case of any\ninvestment which is not recorded in the books of accounts.\nTherefore, said Clause is not applicable. In our considered view,\nthe AO is completely erred in invoking said section and levied\npenalty u/s.270A

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

270A of the\nAct, which speaks about failure to record investment in the books\nof accounts. In our considered view, it is not a case of any\ninvestment which is not recorded in the books of accounts.\nTherefore, said Clause is not applicable. In our considered view,\nthe AO is completely erred in invoking said section and levied\npenalty u/s.270A

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

270A of the\nAct, which speaks about failure to record investment in the books\nof accounts. In our considered view, it is not a case of any\ninvestment which is not recorded in the books of accounts.\nTherefore, said Clause is not applicable. In our considered view,\nthe AO is completely erred in invoking said section and levied\npenalty u/s.270A