BHADRAVATHI RAMALINGASETTY MANJUNATH SETTY,BHADRAVATHI vs. ITO WARD-1 TPS , SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

271-G' by Finance Act, 2015 (No. 20 of 2015), dated 14.5.2015.][, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272-A, sub-section (1) of section 272-AA or ] [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 26 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).][section 272-B or] [ Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 106 (w.e.f

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

10 of 16 health issues in all these years under consideration. The ld. AR of the assessee also drew our attention to the medical reports, various discharge summaries, Dialysis treatment record along with Echocardiogram report produced before us in order to substantiate that there was reasonable cause for delay filing of audit report

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

10 of 16 health issues in all these years under consideration. The ld. AR of the assessee also drew our attention to the medical reports, various discharge summaries, Dialysis treatment record along with Echocardiogram report produced before us in order to substantiate that there was reasonable cause for delay filing of audit report

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

10 of 16 health issues in all these years under consideration. The ld. AR of the assessee also drew our attention to the medical reports, various discharge summaries, Dialysis treatment record along with Echocardiogram report produced before us in order to substantiate that there was reasonable cause for delay filing of audit report

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

10 of 16 health issues in all these years under consideration. The ld. AR of the assessee also drew our attention to the medical reports, various discharge summaries, Dialysis treatment record along with Echocardiogram report produced before us in order to substantiate that there was reasonable cause for delay filing of audit report

SRI. CHINNAYELLAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR, ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

271-G' by Finance Act, 2015 (No. 20 of 2015), dated 14.5.2015.][, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272-A, sub-section (1) of section 272-AA or ] [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 26 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).][section 272-B or] [ Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 106 (w.e.f

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

10. Again, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji, the assessee has filed the appeals for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2019-20 separately before us. The assessee has also filed consolidated paper book comprising 18 pages containing therein a copy of comparative year-wise chart of returns & tax audit filed, ITAT penalty order

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

46 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations assessment order read with the corrigendum - Receipts were offered to tax only after a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

46 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations assessment order read with the corrigendum - Receipts were offered to tax only after a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

46 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations assessment order read with the corrigendum - Receipts were offered to tax only after a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

46 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations assessment order read with the corrigendum - Receipts were offered to tax only after a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton

RAHIL MAHESHKUMAR NIZAMUDDIN,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2), BLR, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

46,662/- had arisen mainly due to the re-computation of Capital gains on sale of land at Poojanahalli and the tax on Joint development agreement of the Property on Infantry Road. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the learned A.O. had called for various details and particulars. The assessee furnished all the details and particulars called for time

JICE ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

271 D of the I.T. Act 1961. Accordingly, the Addl.CIT invoked the provisions of section 271D and levied penalty at Rs.15,64,50,000 for accepting loan in cash in violation of provisions of section 269SS as per section 271D of the Act. 19. The main contention of the ld. AR is that the transaction is genuine

SRI. H. LAKSHMINARAYANA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

46,878 3,41,916 2,94,883 1,06,990 6,71,860 Rs.) Revised (belated return 02/07/10 02/07/10 02/07/10 02/07/10 02/07/10 filed) Additional income 13,66,704 3,25,392 15,42,099 4,15,766 5,62,361 declared (in Rs.) Date of Asst. Order 21/07/10 21/07/10 21/07/10 21/07/10 21/07/10 Total

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

46,711/- respectively for AY 2009-10 to 2011-12. ITA Nos.2631, 2633 to 2637/Bang/2018 Page 4 of 15 8. Against the aforesaid orders imposing penalty u/s.271D and 271E of the Act, the Assessee preferred six appeals before the CIT(A). The contention of the Assessee in the appeals before CIT(A) was that the assessment orders in which

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

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

46,711/- respectively for AY 2009-10 to 2011-12. ITA Nos.2631, 2633 to 2637/Bang/2018 Page 4 of 15 8. Against the aforesaid orders imposing penalty u/s.271D and 271E of the Act, the Assessee preferred six appeals before the CIT(A). The contention of the Assessee in the appeals before CIT(A) was that the assessment orders in which

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

46,711/- respectively for AY 2009-10 to 2011-12. ITA Nos.2631, 2633 to 2637/Bang/2018 Page 4 of 15 8. Against the aforesaid orders imposing penalty u/s.271D and 271E of the Act, the Assessee preferred six appeals before the CIT(A). The contention of the Assessee in the appeals before CIT(A) was that the assessment orders in which

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

46,711/- respectively for AY 2009-10 to 2011-12. ITA Nos.2631, 2633 to 2637/Bang/2018 Page 4 of 15 8. Against the aforesaid orders imposing penalty u/s.271D and 271E of the Act, the Assessee preferred six appeals before the CIT(A). The contention of the Assessee in the appeals before CIT(A) was that the assessment orders in which