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

D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Bangalore dt.26.6.2014 for Assessment Year 2008-09 confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the NFAC, New Delhi for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The only issue raised by the revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271(1), which provides as follows : "(b) the due date for filing the return of income for such previous year has expired but the assessee has not filed the return ;" 6. The aforesaid clause, we are inclined to think, is not applicable to the case of the assessee for the simple reason that it is not the case

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) of the Act by issue of notice under Section 274 rws 271 of the Act dt.18.12.2009. 2.2 From the details on record, it transpires that in the course of survey proceedings

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

d) which is applicable from assessment year 2007-08. In the case of Reliance Pretroproducts Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1

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

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned

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

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned

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

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned

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

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned

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

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned

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

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned

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

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned

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

d) Existence of conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) is a sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271. e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned

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

D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : These two appeals by the assessee, are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Bangalore dt.24.2.2012 and 2.3.2012 for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively, challenging the confirmation of orders of the Assessing Officer levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income

M. VEERABHADRAIAH,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for A

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee on the income offered in the return of income for the concerned assessment years, because there cannot be any penalty on income which is declared in the returns of income, more so when the returned income is accepted

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

D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.01.2014 of CIT(A), Hubli, relating to Assessment Year 2007-08 whereby the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 11.06.2010 imposing penalty of Rs.11,38,000/- on the assessee under section 271(1

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

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A)-11 Bangalore dated 4.8.2023. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action

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

D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz : This appeal by revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – III, Bangalore dt.23.12.2013 for Assessment Year 2007-08, in respect of the issue of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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.

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