BASAVARAJ LAXMANAGOUDA BIRADAR,VIJAYAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIJAYAPURA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

cash deposit at Rs.80,91,500/-. Consequently, he levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the said

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

deposition of the assessee recorded under section 131 was bifurcated into 3 persons, i.e., of Rs. 3,50,00,000 was disclosed in the name of the assessee, Rs. 2,25,00,000 was disclosed in the name of the assessee's wife, Smt. Rajshree Dugor, and Rs. 25,00,000 was disclosed in the name of the limited company

VIJAYARANGAM RANGANATH PRAVHAKAR,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

271-D of the Act in as much as the advance for sale of land was received prior to the introduction of the amendment u/s 269SS of the Act and further that the provisions of Section 271D of the Act do not stand attracted to transactions undertaken between the Individual and HUF and thus, the learned Assessment Unit, Income

NANDIGOWDANAHALLI MANJAPPA PUSHPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BENGALURU

cash deposits into\nbank accounts as unexplained money over and above the addition\nmade by treating the agricultural income of unexplained money\namounts to double addition. The total of Rs. 43,17,498/- made u/s\n69A of the Act (Rs. 28,97,498 + Rs.14,20,000) is taxed @ 60% u/s\n115BBE of the Act and surcharge of Rs.6,47,625/has

MARIS CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HULIYAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, TUMKUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

deposited late and on such disallowance as has been confirmed by both CIT (Appeals) and ITAT and therefore, the imposition of penalty by Assessing Officer was just and proper. Per contra, learned senior counsel submitted that none of the elements of Section 271(1)(c) get attracted in case of ITA 1672 OF 2019 MARIS CEMENTS PVT. LTD., HULIYAR Page

M/S. DRL LOGTISTICS PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

deposits from any other person to levy penalty u/s. 271-D of the Act and hence, the penalty levied ITA Nos.813 and 814/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 5 deserves to be cancelled. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause in complying with the provisions

M/S. DRL LOGTISTICS PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

deposits from any other person to levy penalty u/s. 271-D of the Act and hence, the penalty levied ITA Nos.813 and 814/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 5 deserves to be cancelled. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause in complying with the provisions

SRI. PADMANABHA MANGALORE CHOWTA,MANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017 – 18

depositing the cash so received in his bank account and offering the same while computing long term capital gains in the return of income voluntarily filed for the year under appeal under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The levy of penalty u/s 271

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. MR. SANJAY SHENOY, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R Baskaran

deposit in cash attracts the penalty in the hands of the person so repaid a sum equal to the sum of loan repaid in cash. 3. The proceedings u/s 271D and 271E of the Act were initiated against the assessee for taking loan in cash and repaying the loan in cash as mentioned above. 4. Under the provisions

SYED IRFAN GULAB JAN PASHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

cash deposits are recycled deposits out of the earlier withdrawals and the LIC premiums received from the clients. Insofar as the deposit in HDFC Bank, the assessee submitted that it is a joint account and he has not remitted any money into the said account. The Ld.CIT(A) not Page 6 of 8 ITA Nos. 1094 & 1095/Bang/2025 accepted the grounds

SYED IRFAN GULAB JAN PASHA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

cash deposits are recycled deposits out of the earlier withdrawals and the LIC premiums received from the clients. Insofar as the deposit in HDFC Bank, the assessee submitted that it is a joint account and he has not remitted any money into the said account. The Ld.CIT(A) not Page 6 of 8 ITA Nos. 1094 & 1095/Bang/2025 accepted the grounds

SRI AMIT KUMAR LOYA ,GULBARGA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , BELAGAVI

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

deposits before the AO during the course of penalty proceedings. Accordingly, she contended that the AO was not justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld A.R relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M M Gujamgadi (2007)(290 ITR 168), wherein the deletion

SRI. SHANKAR SOUHARDHA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT ,GULBARGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1& TPS , GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

deposits in bank account remained unexplained. Proceedings u/s 148 were initiated and various opportunities were given to the assessee to explain the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16. Since the assessee had not filed any reply, it was logically concluded that he had no proper explanation with respect to the above cash

KAVITHA R,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), MYSORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2010-11 Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Kum. Kavitha R, No.3, 22Nd Cross, E Block, I Ward - 1(2), Floor, Vijayanagar Iii Stage, Mysore. Mysore. Pan : Bdrpk 5212 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. R. Anitha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Karuppusamy S.R, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019 O R D E R

penalty dings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3.2 All the grounds raised in this appeal (supra) are in respect of the issue of the addition of Rs.16,80,500/- made towards “undisclosed investment” in the hands of the assessee. In the course of proceedings, the learned AR of the Page 4 of 10 assessee filed a paper book

SMT. JAVANGI HARIBUSHNA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) proceedings simultaneously. 2.4 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) while deciding the issue observed and held as under: “6. DECISION: In this case, the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer worth Rs. 31,80,000/- u/s 68 of the Income

SMT. JAVANGI HARIBUSHNA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) proceedings simultaneously. 2.4 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) while deciding the issue observed and held as under: “6. DECISION: In this case, the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer worth Rs. 31,80,000/- u/s 68 of the Income

MAHESHWARAPPA MUNIRAMU,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

u/s 269SS of the Act and accepted his share of sale consideration of Rs.10 lakhs in cash. This bonafide belief clearly established from the fact that the assessee had deposited the cash received on sale of immovable property into his bank account maintained with canara bank & thereafter deposited/transferred the same to the bank account opened under the capital gains account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

deposit or specified advance so repaid. 7. In the case of the Assessee in the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2009- 10 to 2011-12, the AO noticed that the Assessee had repaid cash loans in violation of the provisions of Sec.269T and hence penalty proceedings u/s.271-E were intiated in the Assessment orders for AY 2009-10 dated