Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 of the 25,141 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court
672
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT
124 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
622
citing judgments

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT
291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court
565
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

Judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 2014/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(CIT DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 6

Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 2013/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(CIT DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 6

Anil Tilakraj Mehra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 2011/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Om KandalkarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(CIT DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 6

Mahesh Vrajlal Babaria, Mumbai vs. Income Tax-Officer, Circle-18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 1867/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271

Rohan Bloodstock Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1761/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271Section 37(1)Section 69C

Parin Engineers, Mumbai vs. Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1725/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271F

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1 (2), Mumbai, Piramal Chembers

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4546/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Assessing Officer Through Mr. Manish H Mehta, Ca & Filed Details Called For. After Examining The Response Of The Assessee, Learned Assessing Officer Added In The Assessee’S Income For A.Y. 2012-13, Unspent Accumulation Of Rs. 1,45,01,730/- Of Earlier Years For A.Y. 2006-07. Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Were Also Initiated Against The Assessee For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars & For Concealment Of Income. Aggrieved By Assessment Order, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before Learned Cit(A), Who Dismissed Assessee’S Appeal For Non Prosecution.

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(C)

Praful Devji Galia, Mumbai vs. Rajnish K Sinha, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4278/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 69

Bajrang Lal Muhal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2408/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyabajrang Lal Muhal, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1)(5), 973/B, Shalimar Garden Extn. 1, Ghaziabad. Sahibabad, Ghaziabad – 201 005 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aompm4148M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Upadhyay, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date Of Order : 11.07.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 10.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. The Assessment Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer Is Bad In Law. 2. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.10,19,548/- As Unexplained Investment Without Considering The Fact, Circumstances & Materials Available On Record. 3. Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Without Considering The Fact, Circumstances & Material Available On Record.” 3. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Delay Is Attributable Due To The Health Problem Of The Legal

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Upadhyay, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

M/S. the Emerald Infra, Vadodara vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 228/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153B(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Tarun Santramdas Varma, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 852/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.852/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tarun Santramdas Varma The Asst.Cit बनाम/ 307-308, Sarthik Square Circle 4 (1)(1) Nr. New Us Pizz, Ahmedabad V/S. Sg Highway Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaipv 6427 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29-8-2023 Pertaining To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Arising From The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Tarun Satramdas Varma Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Parimal Sinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 405/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.405/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel The Dy.Cit D-41, Sahjanand Apartment बनाम/ Central Circle-1(3) Nr. Sterling Hospital Ahmedabad V/S. Gurukul Road,Memnagar Ahmedabad – 380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ayvpp 7593 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay H. Patel, Ar (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 20/12/2018, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 28/12/2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. Mahendrabhai Shantilal Patel Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay H. Patel, AR (Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 68Section 69A

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Nasshik, Nashik vs. Harsh Constructions Private Limited, Nashik

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

ITA 302/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S. DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 133Section 133(5)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Ambereen Islam, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-40, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.262/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ambereen Islam….…………………..……………………....………....Appellant 71, Princep Street, Chandni Chawk, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan: Aakpi3448Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings Noted That The Assessee Had Raised A Claim Of Duty Draw Back To The Tune Of Rs.3,67,376/-, Whereas, The Assessee Had Disclosed A Sum Of Rs.69,525/- Under The Head ‘Duty Draw Back’. On Being Asked To Explain In This Respect, The Assessee Explained That The Balance Amount Of Rs.2,97,851/- Was Not Received During The Year. That The Amount Of

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Aplnagappa Chettiar, Madurai vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.748/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri A.Pl.Nagappa Chettiar, The Acit, Plot No.353, Anna Nagar, Circle-3, Madurai-625 020. Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Sagayavincent Susai Mary, Neyveli vs. ITO Ward 4, Cuddalore

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 398/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.398/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ms. Sagayavincent Susai Mary Ito बनाम/ C-20, Nkr Pillai Street, Ward-4 Vs. Block-2, Neyveli-607 801. Cuddalore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Apaps-7578-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) For Rs.1.43 Lacs For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] On 31-12-2023 In The Matter Of Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act On 22-09- 2022. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. It Emerges That The Assessee, In The Regular Return Of Income

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

K. S. Velusamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

Appeals stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 125/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.123/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.124/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri K.S. Velusamy Dcit बनाम/ #41, Ayyasamy Street, Central Circle-3(3), Shanmugam Road,West Tambaram, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 045. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agupv-1436-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkat Raman (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(Jcit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkat Raman (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

K. S. Velusamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

Appeals stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 124/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.123/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.124/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri K.S. Velusamy Dcit बनाम/ #41, Ayyasamy Street, Central Circle-3(3), Shanmugam Road,West Tambaram, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 045. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agupv-1436-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkat Raman (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(Jcit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkat Raman (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

K. S. Velusamy, Chennnai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

Appeals stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 123/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.123/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.124/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri K.S. Velusamy Dcit बनाम/ #41, Ayyasamy Street, Central Circle-3(3), Shanmugam Road,West Tambaram, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 045. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agupv-1436-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkat Raman (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar(Jcit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkat Raman (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar(JCIT) -Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Manish Agarwal, Chennai vs. The DCIT, Ncc-4(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1083/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1082 & 1083/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri Manish Agarwal, The Dcit, Suit No.314, Ram Lakhan Chambers, Ncc-4(1), General Muthiah Mudaly Street, Chennai. Sowcarpet, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Afkpm 9253 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.KarunakaranFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 208Section 249Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 69A