KARNATAKA AGROCHEMICAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-4(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

Housing Development Co. v. Addl. CIT reported in [2010] 001 ITR (Trib) 0165 • CIT v. Balaji Traders reported in 303 ITR 312 (Mad) • OMEC Engineers v. CIT reported in 294 ITR 599 (Jhar) • CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., reported in 285 ITR 221 (Mad) • Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kum. A B Shanthi reported

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

269T of the I.T.Act are not applicable. In this context, the learned AR relied on the orders of the Tribunal in 4 ITA Nos.480-489/B/2020-Sri.Gopal S.Pandith. ITA No.496/B/2020 – Smt.Rajeshwari Pandith the case of Smt.Deepika v. Addl.CIT [ITA No.561/Bang/2017 – order dated 13.10.2017] and in the case of Shri Sanmathi Ambanna v. JCIT [ITA No.782/Bang/2017 – order dated 02.01.2019] As regards the loans taken

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

269T of the I.T.Act are not applicable. In this context, the learned AR relied on the orders of the Tribunal in 4 ITA Nos.480-489/B/2020-Sri.Gopal S.Pandith. ITA No.496/B/2020 – Smt.Rajeshwari Pandith the case of Smt.Deepika v. Addl.CIT [ITA No.561/Bang/2017 – order dated 13.10.2017] and in the case of Shri Sanmathi Ambanna v. JCIT [ITA No.782/Bang/2017 – order dated 02.01.2019] As regards the loans taken

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

269T of the I.T.Act are not applicable. In this context, the learned AR relied on the orders of the Tribunal in 4 ITA Nos.480-489/B/2020-Sri.Gopal S.Pandith. ITA No.496/B/2020 – Smt.Rajeshwari Pandith the case of Smt.Deepika v. Addl.CIT [ITA No.561/Bang/2017 – order dated 13.10.2017] and in the case of Shri Sanmathi Ambanna v. JCIT [ITA No.782/Bang/2017 – order dated 02.01.2019] As regards the loans taken

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

269T of the I.T.Act are not applicable. In this context, the learned AR relied on the orders of the Tribunal in 4 ITA Nos.480-489/B/2020-Sri.Gopal S.Pandith. ITA No.496/B/2020 – Smt.Rajeshwari Pandith the case of Smt.Deepika v. Addl.CIT [ITA No.561/Bang/2017 – order dated 13.10.2017] and in the case of Shri Sanmathi Ambanna v. JCIT [ITA No.782/Bang/2017 – order dated 02.01.2019] As regards the loans taken

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

269T of the I.T.Act are not applicable. In this context, the learned AR relied on the orders of the Tribunal in 4 ITA Nos.480-489/B/2020-Sri.Gopal S.Pandith. ITA No.496/B/2020 – Smt.Rajeshwari Pandith the case of Smt.Deepika v. Addl.CIT [ITA No.561/Bang/2017 – order dated 13.10.2017] and in the case of Shri Sanmathi Ambanna v. JCIT [ITA No.782/Bang/2017 – order dated 02.01.2019] As regards the loans taken

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

269T of the I.T.Act are not applicable. In this context, the learned AR relied on the orders of the Tribunal in 4 ITA Nos.480-489/B/2020-Sri.Gopal S.Pandith. ITA No.496/B/2020 – Smt.Rajeshwari Pandith the case of Smt.Deepika v. Addl.CIT [ITA No.561/Bang/2017 – order dated 13.10.2017] and in the case of Shri Sanmathi Ambanna v. JCIT [ITA No.782/Bang/2017 – order dated 02.01.2019] As regards the loans taken

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

269T of the I.T.Act are not applicable. In this context, the learned AR relied on the orders of the Tribunal in 4 ITA Nos.480-489/B/2020-Sri.Gopal S.Pandith. ITA No.496/B/2020 – Smt.Rajeshwari Pandith the case of Smt.Deepika v. Addl.CIT [ITA No.561/Bang/2017 – order dated 13.10.2017] and in the case of Shri Sanmathi Ambanna v. JCIT [ITA No.782/Bang/2017 – order dated 02.01.2019] As regards the loans taken

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

269T of the I.T.Act are not applicable. In this context, the learned AR relied on the orders of the Tribunal in 4 ITA Nos.480-489/B/2020-Sri.Gopal S.Pandith. ITA No.496/B/2020 – Smt.Rajeshwari Pandith the case of Smt.Deepika v. Addl.CIT [ITA No.561/Bang/2017 – order dated 13.10.2017] and in the case of Shri Sanmathi Ambanna v. JCIT [ITA No.782/Bang/2017 – order dated 02.01.2019] As regards the loans taken

SHRI.GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

269T of the I.T.Act are not applicable. In this context, the learned AR relied on the orders of the Tribunal in 4 ITA Nos.480-489/B/2020-Sri.Gopal S.Pandith. ITA No.496/B/2020 – Smt.Rajeshwari Pandith the case of Smt.Deepika v. Addl.CIT [ITA No.561/Bang/2017 – order dated 13.10.2017] and in the case of Shri Sanmathi Ambanna v. JCIT [ITA No.782/Bang/2017 – order dated 02.01.2019] As regards the loans taken

SHRI. GOPAL S. PANDITH,MYSORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

269T of the I.T.Act are not applicable. In this context, the learned AR relied on the orders of the Tribunal in 4 ITA Nos.480-489/B/2020-Sri.Gopal S.Pandith. ITA No.496/B/2020 – Smt.Rajeshwari Pandith the case of Smt.Deepika v. Addl.CIT [ITA No.561/Bang/2017 – order dated 13.10.2017] and in the case of Shri Sanmathi Ambanna v. JCIT [ITA No.782/Bang/2017 – order dated 02.01.2019] As regards the loans taken

SMT. RAJESHWARI PANDITH,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, PANAJI, GOA

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

269T of the I.T.Act are not applicable. In this context, the learned AR relied on the orders of the Tribunal in 4 ITA Nos.480-489/B/2020-Sri.Gopal S.Pandith. ITA No.496/B/2020 – Smt.Rajeshwari Pandith the case of Smt.Deepika v. Addl.CIT [ITA No.561/Bang/2017 – order dated 13.10.2017] and in the case of Shri Sanmathi Ambanna v. JCIT [ITA No.782/Bang/2017 – order dated 02.01.2019] As regards the loans taken

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

property whether or not the transfer takes place. It is further proposed to make consequential amendments in section 271D and section 271E to provide penalty for failure to comply with the amended provisions of section 269SS and 269T, respectively. These amendments will take effect from 1st day of June, 2015. [Clauses 66, 67, 69 & 70] Sri Gangadhara Shetty, Mangalore Page

MR.MOHAMMADYSUF R, DARGAD ,DHARWAD vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2 , HUBBALI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

269T of the act. The payment of Rs.4.00.000/- was made directly in the bank account of IPF. The Addl CIT initiated the penalty u/s 271E of the act and called for explanation of the assessee and the assessee explained that no cash payment was made ITA Nos.288 & 289/Bang/2019 :- 3 -: directly to the assessee, since the payment was made

MR.MOHAMMADYUSUF R.DARGAD ,DHARWAD vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-2 , HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

269T of the act. The payment of Rs.4.00.000/- was made directly in the bank account of IPF. The Addl CIT initiated the penalty u/s 271E of the act and called for explanation of the assessee and the assessee explained that no cash payment was made ITA Nos.288 & 289/Bang/2019 :- 3 -: directly to the assessee, since the payment was made

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

269T shall attract penalty provisions of sec. 271D & 271E of the Act. Accordingly, he levied penalty of Rs.12.50 lakhs each both u/s 271D & u/s 271E of the IT Act, 1961. 3. The ld.CIT(A) agreed with the view of Ld JCIT that these are loan transactions only. The Ld CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied u/s 271D

GIRISH APPA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Abraham P. George

house property". During the Assessment based on the Valuation Certificates the Land, Building & Furniture and Interiors was bifurcated and depreciation schedule was reworked and presented to the Assessing officer for his perusal. Reworked Depreciation Schedule and Resultant Accumulated Profit both as per Income Tax Act/ Rules and Companies Act were presented. The Details have been presented in Annexure