SHRI S KRISHNA PRASAD ,BALLARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

business in the return of income filed, yet he agreed for the addition of the above said amount in various years during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO also made certain small additions in various years and accordingly completed the assessment. 3. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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

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

business of processing of dry chillies and trading in chilly powder. The assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) on 23/9/2010 declaring income of Rs.7,14,440/-. Consequent upon search and seizure action the assessee filed return in pursuance of notice u/s 153A on 30/1/2015 declaring income of Rs.7,24,440/- including the amount of Rs.10,000/- on account

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

business income and interest on FDS and other deposits under the income from other sources. Thereafter the case was selected for manual scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) were issued along with the questionnaire. The assessee filed the required documents along with the computation of statement of total income. Several other documents were

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

SUBBALAKSHMI KURADA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

business by the assessee. Therefore, there is no concealment of any income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee but only the claim was made under a different head of income and that should not be a reason for imposing penalty u/s. 271

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

SRI. K. VENKATARAMI REDDY,DAVANGERE vs. JCIT, DAVANGERE

In the result, assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazshri K Venkatarami Reddy, #1848/44-45, Iii Cross, Vinayaka Badavane, Vidhyanagar, Davangere. . Appellant Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Davangere Range, Davangere. . Respondent Pan - Avpp2429M. Appellant By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Acit Date Of Hearing : 22-11-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-11-2017 O R 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), Davangere Dated 29/2/2016; Partly Upholding The Orders Of The Jcit, Davangere Range Dated 3/2/2014 Levying Penalty U/S Ita No.945/B/16 2

penalty levied u/s. 271 [1][c] of the Act at 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded as against the levy of 150% made by the learned A.O., in respect of the addition made in the assessment on account of estimate of income from business

SIMRAN K SAYYED ,GADAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , GADAG

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Asst

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13 Ms. Simran. K. Sayyed, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Near Bhisma Tank, Ward - 1, Gadag – 582 101. Gadag. Pan : Bwgps 4895 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Mrinalini, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2019

penalty of Rs.9,81,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under: 2.1 The assessee, engaged in real estate business