ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

u/s. 271(1)(c) on mere denial of exemption under Clause (iiiab) of section 10(23)C was unwarranted and unjustified, since the Respondent was under the bona fide impression that it was eligible for the said exemption as it was constituted under an Act of the Government of Karnataka and existed solely for the purpose of education

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

u/s. 271(1)(c) on mere denial of exemption under Clause (iiiab) of section 10(23)C was unwarranted and unjustified, since the Respondent was under the bona fide impression that it was eligible for the said exemption as it was constituted under an Act of the Government of Karnataka and existed solely for the purpose of education

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

u/s. 271(1)(c) on mere denial of exemption under Clause (iiiab) of section 10(23)C was unwarranted and unjustified, since the Respondent was under the bona fide impression that it was eligible for the said exemption as it was constituted under an Act of the Government of Karnataka and existed solely for the purpose of education

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

u/s. 271(1)(c) on mere denial of exemption under Clause (iiiab) of section 10(23)C was unwarranted and unjustified, since the Respondent was under the bona fide impression that it was eligible for the said exemption as it was constituted under an Act of the Government of Karnataka and existed solely for the purpose of education

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

u/s. 271(1)(c) on mere denial of exemption under Clause (iiiab) of section 10(23)C was unwarranted and unjustified, since the Respondent was under the bona fide impression that it was eligible for the said exemption as it was constituted under an Act of the Government of Karnataka and existed solely for the purpose of education

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

disallowance of the amount claimed. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

disallowed by the AO for want of vouchers. Since the assessee had filed return of income only pursuant to the survey, and thereafter by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and penalty was imposed on the assessee u/s. 271

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE--2(1),, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

disallowed by the AO for want of vouchers. Since the assessee had filed return of income only pursuant to the survey, and thereafter by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and penalty was imposed on the assessee u/s. 271

SHRI. AJITH R,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

disallowed by the AO for want of vouchers. Since the assessee had filed return of income only pursuant to the survey, and thereafter by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and penalty was imposed on the assessee u/s. 271

R.AJITH ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

disallowed by the AO for want of vouchers. Since the assessee had filed return of income only pursuant to the survey, and thereafter by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and penalty was imposed on the assessee u/s. 271

K RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

disallowed by the AO for want of vouchers. Since the assessee had filed return of income only pursuant to the survey, and thereafter by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and penalty was imposed on the assessee u/s. 271

K.RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

disallowed by the AO for want of vouchers. Since the assessee had filed return of income only pursuant to the survey, and thereafter by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and penalty was imposed on the assessee u/s. 271

SHRI. AJITH R,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

disallowed by the AO for want of vouchers. Since the assessee had filed return of income only pursuant to the survey, and thereafter by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and penalty was imposed on the assessee u/s. 271

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

disallowed by the AO for want of vouchers. Since the assessee had filed return of income only pursuant to the survey, and thereafter by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and penalty was imposed on the assessee u/s. 271

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

HARSHAVARDHAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all 13 appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance is not a subject matter of penalty u/s 271 AAB. Before such disallowance, there is loss as claimed by the assessee

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

U/s 271(1)(c) dated 27/06/2019. 4.12 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Penalty Order passed 271(1)(c), the Assessee filed an Appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty with the following observations- “It is fact on record that this disallowance

M/S STUMP SCHUELE AND SOMAPPA SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Stumpp Schuele & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Somappa Springs Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Ltu, No.139/2, Hosur Road, Circle - 1, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 095. Pan : Aalcs 7347 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sowmya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boazthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-10, Bangalore, Dated 01.02.2018 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Upholding The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 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: Page 2 Of 9 2.1 The Assessee, A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Supply Of Stabilizer Bars & All Varieties Of Springs, Automobile Components, Spare Parts, Accessories, Etc., Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 Declaring Loss Of (-) Rs.5,34,42,031/- Under Normal Provisions & ‘Book Profits’ Of Rs.2,88,52,729/- Under Section 115Jb Of The Act. The Case Was Taken Up For Assessment For This Assessment Year & The Assessment Was Concluded Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 13.03.2015, Wherein The Assessee’S Loss Was Determined At Rs.4,55,68,066/- In View Of The Following Additions / Deductions:- (I) Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 35(2Ab) – Rs.14,34,982/- (Ii) Disallowance Of Leave Encashment – Rs.64,38,983/-.

disallowances. After considering the assessee’s replies in the matter, the AO proceeded to levy penalty of Rs.26,50,376/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 22.09.2015. On appeal, the CIT(A)-10, vide the impugned order dated 01.02.2018, upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, not to levy penalty and the assessing officer ought to have exercised his discretion judiciously and ought not to have imposed penalty in a mechanical manner, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Without prejudice, the authorities below failed to appreciate that the returned income was accepted and there were no additions