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

business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During

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

business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During

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

business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During

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

business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During

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

business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During

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

business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During

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

business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During

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

business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During

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 of Rs. 26,95,117/-.\n6. Any other ground that may he raised subsequently ..”\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a local authority\ncreated under the Karnataka Urban Development

M/S. VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES,SRISI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

business of real estate. The Assessee for the AY 2015-16 had filed its return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 14.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.42,39,920/- and for 2016-17 filed its return of income u/s.139 of the Act on 19/10/2016 declaring total income of Rs.28,39,380/-. 5.1 A search and seizure operation under

M/S. VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES,SRISI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

business of real estate. The Assessee for the AY 2015-16 had filed its return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 14.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.42,39,920/- and for 2016-17 filed its return of income u/s.139 of the Act on 19/10/2016 declaring total income of Rs.28,39,380/-. 5.1 A search and seizure operation under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1) , BANGALORE vs. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES-VST DIESEL ENGINES PRIVATE LIMITED, MYSURU

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

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

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are stated in brief as under:- 4.1 The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant Company is in the business

IBM DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide