TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

disallowed the claim of the assessee and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee had demonstrated

R.AJITH ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

K.RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

SHRI. AJITH R,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

K RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

SHRI. AJITH R,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE--2(1),, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: "271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

SHRI. E. KRISHNAPPA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2009-10 are allowed

section 271[1][c] of the Act requires to be cancelled. 9. Without prejudice the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that mere additions and disallowances

MRS.NANJAIAH NAGAMANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dt.29.4.2011 @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded in respect of both of the above additions / disallowances

SMT NAGAMANI K T,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

disallowance of Rs.48,672 under Section 40A(3) of the Act. While passing the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

section 271(1)(c) of the Act were simultaneously initiated. The assessment was completed making the following additions / disallowances :- i) Disallowance

M. VEERABHADRAIAH,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for A

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Explanation 3 : Where any person, fails, without reasonable cause, to furnish within the period specified in sub-section (1) of section

DCIT vs. SRI. P. SUBRAMANI,

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

271(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that in the return of income for Assessment Year 2006-07, the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in claiming exemption under section 54B of the Act, which claim after being disallowed

M/S GOGGA GURUSHANTHIAH & BROS.,HOSPET vs. ACIT, BELLARY

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2007-08 M/S. Gogga Gurushantiah Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of & Brothers, Income-Tax, P. No. 4, Mine Owners & Circle – I, Mineral Grinders Nehru Co-Op Bellary. Colony, Hospet. Pan : Aacfg 6895 M Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2007-08, the assessee has filed this appeal wherein it has raised the following grounds: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) is not justified is up holding the proposition of The Assessing Officer in levy of Penalty U/s 271(1)( c) for AY 2007-08 2. The learned

SIMPLEX TMC PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee as Long Term Capital Gains. The AO further held that as the assessee had not offered the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as income, the undisclosed income is covered by provision of clause(b) Simplex TMC Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 17 of Section 271AAB

SRI RAJAN R SRINIVASAN ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazshri Rajan R Srinivasan, No.2965, 12Th Main, Hal 2Nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560008. … Appellant Pan:Afsps 7509F Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Incomet-Ax, Circle 1(2)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bairav Kuttaiah, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/07/2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vp: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16/01/2009 Of The Cit(Appeals)-2, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. In This Appeal, Th Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(Appeals) Wherein The Cit(Appeals) Confirmed The Order Of The Ao Imposing Penalty On The Assessee U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income- Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short]. The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Under Which The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Was Imposed On The Assessee By The Ao Are As Follows: The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Salary’ From M/S. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Pune Besides Income From Business. The Ao Concluded The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2006-07. The Assessee Claimed As Expenditure Incurred In Connection With Business Of The Assessee A Page 2 Of 10 Sum Of Rs.8,57,872/-. These Expenses Were Disallowed By The Ao For The Reason That They Were Purely Personal In Nature & The Assessee Could Not Establish The Nexus Of Those Expenses With The Business Of The Assessee. In Respect Of Addition Made As Aforesaid, Penalty Proceedings Were Initiated & Levied On The Assessee For Concealing Particulars Of Income & Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are as follows: The assessee is an individual deriving income under the head ‘salary’ from M/s. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Pune besides income from business. The AO concluded the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee claimed