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

u/s Receipts were not offered under section 139) and thereby contending that the 139 of the Act basis juridical precedents/ Assessee had not disclosed all the facts IBM Corp’s order for AY 2011-12. - material to the computation of its total AO cannot contend that the Assessee had income. Reference drawn to Delhi not disclosed all material facts, especially

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

u/s Receipts were not offered under section 139) and thereby contending that the 139 of the Act basis juridical precedents/ Assessee had not disclosed all the facts IBM Corp’s order for AY 2011-12. - material to the computation of its total AO cannot contend that the Assessee had income. Reference drawn to Delhi not disclosed all material facts, especially

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

u/s Receipts were not offered under section 139) and thereby contending that the 139 of the Act basis juridical precedents/ Assessee had not disclosed all the facts IBM Corp’s order for AY 2011-12. - material to the computation of its total AO cannot contend that the Assessee had income. Reference drawn to Delhi not disclosed all material facts, especially

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

142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee calling for details along with evidences. The assessee furnished all the details in response to the said notices. Based on the reply furnished by the assessee, the assessment was completed on 16.6.2020 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act by accepting the returned income

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 u/s 271[1][c] of the Act passed by the learned A.O. for the aforesaid assessment year, I had instituted an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals]- 1 and later file transferred to the learned CIT[A]-3, BENGALURU. 2. That, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] disposed off the appeal instituted

M/S RAJESH ENTERPRISES ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Year 2006-07 is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2008-09 M/S. Rajesh Enterprises, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Narmada Building, Ward - 3(3), Mangalwar Peth, Hubli . Hubli – 580 020. Pan : Aadfr 4941 C Appellant Respondent

142(1) of the Act dated 22.01.2009 was issued to the assessee requiring it to file return of income for this Assessment Year as the Assessing Officer (AO) had information in his possession that the assessee had effected turnover in excess of Rs.40 lakhs from VAT Department. Since there was no response to the many notices issued

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALLARI vs. BELLARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BALLARI

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

142(1) seeking the response from the\nassessee why the said amount should not be disallowed as the same\nappears to be in capital nature. The assessee filed their reply on\n06/12/2019 and explained that the expenditure debited relates to the\ndevelopment of public parks which were handed over to the CMC and\ntherefore it could be revenue in nature

M. VEERABHADRAIAH,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for A

142(1) or 148 was issued within two years. But if an assessee files a return of his income after the period of two years in response to a notice under section 148, he would be caught within the mischief of this Explanation. 12. In the present case, Expln.-3 to sec.271(1) of the Act will not apply because

SMT. ROOPA SURYANARAYANA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoita Nos. 997 To 1001/Bang/2014 (Asst. Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09) Smt. Roopa Suryanarayana, Prop. Yashasvi Packs, No.44, 4Th Cross, Ad Halli, Magadi Main Road, Bangalore-560 040. . Appellant Pan: Admpr 9875K

142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings the appellant’s AR pleaded that income so offered in revised returns of income may be ITA Nos.997 to1001/B/14 9 considered as taxable income and the AO accordingly completed the assessment accepting income as per revised (belated) returns of income and brought to tax. The AO during the assessment

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

142(1) dated 10/12/2018 the Assessee would have got the Refund is also not tenable as the Assessee Company had already paid the additional taxes along with the Interest suo motto on 30/05/2018 under minor head “Tax on Regular Assessment (400)” after the preparation of revised computation way before the issuance of Notice U/s 143(2) for the Asst year

SRI. PANATI VIKRAMDEVA REDDY,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 273B. Thereafter relying on the following judgments the AO imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act by order dated 15.9.222 for non-compliance of notices u/s. 142

SRI. PANATI VIKRAMDEVA REDDY,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 273B. Thereafter relying on the following judgments the AO imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act by order dated 15.9.222 for non-compliance of notices u/s. 142

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that

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

section 274 rws 271 of the Act is defective as the same has been issued for both concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and thus, the entire proceedings are bad in law and hence, the order passed deserves to be cancelled. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that

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

142(1) but because of the pressure of work, they had not viewed the\nemail and therefore a lenient view may be taken and the penalty imposed\nu/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act may be deleted. The Ld.AR also filed paper books\nand also relied on the orders of the Coordinated Benches of this Tribunal\nand prayed to allow