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

exemption claimed by the assessee university u/s 10(23c)(iiiab) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were

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

exemption claimed by the assessee university u/s 10(23c)(iiiab) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were

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

exemption claimed by the assessee university u/s 10(23c)(iiiab) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were

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

exemption claimed by the assessee university u/s 10(23c)(iiiab) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were

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

exemption claimed by the assessee university u/s 10(23c)(iiiab) of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were

SMT B SUMATHY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2005-06 Smt. B. Sumathy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #T-401, Poorva Park, Ward – 1(2), Now Jeevana Halli Main Road, Ito, Ward – 1[2][2], Cox Town, Bangalore-560 005. Bangalore. Pan : Aseps 7079 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. T. Chandrasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2019

penalty 2. of Rs. 1,75,000/- levied u/s. 271[1][c] of the Act in respect of the denial of the exemption

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) on the basis that income\nof the assessee is exempt u/s 10(46) of the Act as per\nCBDT

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

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act observing at para 6 thereof that, “ 6. We are constrained to reject the assessee's contention. We are pained tonote that the Tribunal completely ignored the assessment order which was not based on any concession from the assessee. Concealment of income in the return filed by the assessee is a glaring fact

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

exemption on the capital gains and therefore submitted that the same would not be a reason for imposing penalty u/s. 271