RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used

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

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

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

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

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

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

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

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

u/s 271(1)(c). Grounds of appeal 3,4, and 5 are hereby allowed. 11. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 12. The learned DR before us argued that, in the facts of this case, the learned CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the penalty. The learned

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above.” 12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings in his/her assessment order, the said date

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above.” 12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings in his/her assessment order, the said date

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

SHRISHAILAMALLIKARJUN TRADERS,NARGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

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

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

penalty of Rs. 1,70,08,720/- being 100% of the of the tax sought to be evaded for the year u/s 271(1)(c ), Explanation 5A, sub clause ii, thereunder without satisfying the conditions thereto and issued the demand notice. 3.13 Further, it was submitted that the ld. AO invoked the provisions of explanation (5A) to section 271(1

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

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15 by levying a penalty of Rs. 96,41,529/- being the amount of penalty levied by concluding that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed his income. Rahil Maheshkumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore Page 5 of 24 2.7 At the outset, the ld. A.R. submitted that

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

13 of 19 15. Based on the above additions of Rs.5,24,58,897/- by way of disallowance of excess brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation, the Assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the I. Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income on or before the completion of the Assessment Proceedings. 16. Further, The Learned

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

271(1)(c) case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has\nbeen filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return\nfiled under section 148 of the Act\nCompagnie IBM\n2013-\n271(1)(c)\n545/Bang/2024\nFiled but\nIn ROI filed\nFrance\n14\nnot offered\nu/s 148\nCompagnie IBM\n2015-\n271(1)(c

IBM DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,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

271(1)(c) case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has\nbeen filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return\nfiled under section 148 of the Act\nCompagnie IBM\n2013-\n271(1)(c)\n545/Bang/2024\nFiled but\nIn ROI filed\nFrance\n14\nnot offered\nu/s 148\nCompagnie IBM\n2015-\n271(1)(c