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

income and consequently the order of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act deserves to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The authorities below failed to appreciate the fact that the additional

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 admitted in the statement is assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial pronouncements as would justify

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 admitted in the statement is assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial pronouncements as would justify

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 admitted in the statement is assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial pronouncements as would justify

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 admitted in the statement is assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial pronouncements as would justify

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

income of Rs. 5,50,00,000 admitted in the statement is assessed as the income of the appellant and added to the income under the head "Income from Business". 7.2 The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO, in the aforesaid order, relevant portion of which has been reproduced above given sufficient reasons backed by judicial pronouncements as would justify

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is settled principle that an addition or/ disallowance resulting in increase to the income

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALLARI vs. BELLARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BALLARI

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by ignoring the fact that\nthe assessee had concealed particulars of income in\nrespect of addition

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered and as the addition has been confirmed in the case of quantum proceedings, on that basis itself, penalty was levied. During the penalty proceedings the ld. AO did not mention how the assessee has concealed the income

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered and as the addition has been confirmed in the case of quantum proceedings, on that basis itself, penalty was levied. During the penalty proceedings the ld. AO did not mention how the assessee has concealed the income

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered and as the addition has been confirmed in the case of quantum proceedings, on that basis itself, penalty was levied. During the penalty proceedings the ld. AO did not mention how the assessee has concealed the income

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered and as the addition has been confirmed in the case of quantum proceedings, on that basis itself, penalty was levied. During the penalty proceedings the ld. AO did not mention how the assessee has concealed the income

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered and as the addition has been confirmed in the case of quantum proceedings, on that basis itself, penalty was levied. During the penalty proceedings the ld. AO did not mention how the assessee has concealed the income

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered and as the addition has been confirmed in the case of quantum proceedings, on that basis itself, penalty was levied. During the penalty proceedings the ld. AO did not mention how the assessee has concealed the income

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered and as the addition has been confirmed in the case of quantum proceedings, on that basis itself, penalty was levied. During the penalty proceedings the ld. AO did not mention how the assessee has concealed the income

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered and as the addition has been confirmed in the case of quantum proceedings, on that basis itself, penalty was levied. During the penalty proceedings the ld. AO did not mention how the assessee has concealed the income

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered and as the addition has been confirmed in the case of quantum proceedings, on that basis itself, penalty was levied. During the penalty proceedings the ld. AO did not mention how the assessee has concealed the income

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271