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

271(1)(c) is confirmed. Such appellate order was passed on 10.1.2025 confirming the penalty order. 7. Assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. It is the ground of the assessee that merely because addition is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction

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

271(1)(c) is confirmed. Such appellate order was passed on 10.1.2025 confirming the penalty order. 7. Assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. It is the ground of the assessee that merely because addition is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction

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

271(1)(c) is confirmed. Such appellate order was passed on 10.1.2025 confirming the penalty order. 7. Assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. It is the ground of the assessee that merely because addition is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction

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

271(1)(c) is confirmed. Such appellate order was passed on 10.1.2025 confirming the penalty order. 7. Assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. It is the ground of the assessee that merely because addition is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction

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

271(1)(c) is confirmed. Such appellate order was passed on 10.1.2025 confirming the penalty order. 7. Assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. It is the ground of the assessee that merely because addition is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction

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

271(1)(c) is confirmed. Such appellate order was passed on 10.1.2025 confirming the penalty order. 7. Assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. It is the ground of the assessee that merely because addition is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction

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

271(1)(c) is confirmed. Such appellate order was passed on 10.1.2025 confirming the penalty order. 7. Assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. It is the ground of the assessee that merely because addition is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction

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

271(1)(c) is confirmed. Such appellate order was passed on 10.1.2025 confirming the penalty order. 7. Assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. It is the ground of the assessee that merely because addition is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction

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

271(1)(c) is confirmed. Such appellate order was passed on 10.1.2025 confirming the penalty order. 7. Assessee aggrieved with the same is in appeal before us. It is the ground of the assessee that merely because addition is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in quantum proceedings, penalty cannot be levied automatically. The AO has to give his satisfaction

BASAVESHWER DEVALAY ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL BASAVANABAGEWADI,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BIJAPUR

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

exempt u/s. 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. Notices u/s. 143(2)\nas well as u/s. 142(1) were issued, but the assessee had not responded to\nthe notices because of the pressure of work. The AO accepted the return of\nincome filed and no tax liability has been arrived in the said computation.\nIn the said order

NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. [(2009) 23VST 249 (SC)] as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

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

BASAVESHWER DEVALAY ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL ,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , BIJAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) and without considering our written submission filed during the appeal proceedings. 3. That the Learned Commnr. failed to appreciate the fact that penalty imposed u/s 271

M/S. WINDSOR GARDENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty u/s 270A has been invoked in the appellant's case as there has been an addition to the returned income. The section 270AA has an in-built immunity provision which permits an appellant to accept the addition by paying taxes and not filing the appeal. However, this immunity has to be sought

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. RASTRIYA COMPUTER SAKSHARATA SAMITHI, PUTTUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Rastriya The Assistant Computer Saksharata Commissioner Of Samithi, Income Tax Pm Iv 1491, (Exemptions), Sheikmale Building, Circle – 1, Vs. Puttur. Mangaluru. Pan: Aaatr9338J Appellant Respondent

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which has been submitted by the assessee before the authorities below that the notices issued by the assessing officer as well as the penalty notice was not served upon the assessee and assessee came to know regarding the levy of penalty much later. Assessee thereafter collected the assessment order and the penalty order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the course of the Assessment proceedings the AO asked to furnish details of depreciation claimed (Block-wise), details of Asset acquired and details of application during the F.Y 2016-17, previous years with respect to acquisition/procurement of capital asset(s) against which depreciation

SHREE SHARANAVASACESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI NI HALINGALI,HALINGALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BAGALKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17 Shree Sharanabasaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ni Halingali Ito Tq Jamkhandi, Dt Bagalkot Vs. Ward-1 Halingali, Karnataka 587315 Bagalkot Pan No :Aaeas6699C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 07.11.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1070176573(1) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: -

271(1)(c) of the Act. Shree Sharanabasaveshwar Credit Souhard Sahakari Ni Halingali Page 4 of 7 8. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 9. We have heard rival submissions perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the claim of deduction under section

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

Exemptions) Visveswarapuram Vs. Ward-3 Bengaluru 560 004 Bangalore PAN NO : AAJTS8921K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Suman Lumkar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Nischal B., D.R. Date of Hearing : 05.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income