BOMMARABETTU MADHU SUDHANA ACHARYA ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, UDUPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

section 271D of the Act. Bommarabettu Madhusudhana Acharya, Bengaluru Page 2 of 13 3. Without prejudice, the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty ought to have appreciated that the provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act were not acceptable to the case of the appellant and consequently the penalty under sec 271 D was not exigible

MFAR HOLDINGS PVT. LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

gains or the business loss or the section under which these were considered. AO in the operative part of the assessment order dt.27.03.2013 held as under : 3 . The assessee company is engaged in business of Holdings & leasing of Properties and Consultancy services. During the course of hearing, vide order sheet noting on 31/12/12 & 11/01/13, the assessee was asked to furnish

MRS. SUREKHA L/R OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

capital gains. 11. The CIT(A) and AO erred in initiating proceedings under section 271D of the Act for violation of section 269SS of the Act for receipt or Rs.19,20,000/- in cash without Page 3 of 7 appreciating that the amendment to section 269SS prohibiting receipt of any sum in cash in relation to transfer of immovable property

SRI. PADMANABHA MANGALORE CHOWTA,MANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017 – 18

capital gain out of sale of the impugned property and paid the tax liability on it. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act without any further addition. However, the penalty proceedings were invoked with regard to violation of section 269SS of the Act for receiving

SRI. GANGASHARA SHETTY, ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

2 of 5 file the true and correct affairs of his income. In response, the assessee submitted his return of income declaring total income as Nil. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has earned long term capital gain amounting to Rs.29,29,238/-. The assessee claimed exemption of the entire long term capital gain

SMT SAVITA S GONGADSHETT ,BAGALKOT vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAPUR RANGE , VIJAYAPUR

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

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No.116(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt.Savita S Gangadshetti, Gorbal Naka, At Ilkal, Tal. Hungund, Bagalkot Dist. Pan No.Aclpg6870B Appellant Vs The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vijayapur Range, Vijayapur. Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S.Balachandran, Advocate Revenue By : Shri M. Vijaykumar, Addl.Cit

2 02-09-2013 1,00,000.00 3 04-09-2013 1,50,000.00 4 15-09-2013 5,00,000.00 Total 12,50,00,00.00 Accordingly, the JCIT, Vijayapur, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271D and 271E of the IT Act, 1961 respectively for accepting and for repaying the above said amount by way of cash in violation

JAMEEL UR RAHAMAN,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HASSAN

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

271D of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2017-2018. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual, having income from capital gains. For the assessment year 2017-2018, the return of income was filed on 19.11.2018 declaring total income of Rs.6,38,940. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act