M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

penalties\nrelated to income\nconcealment under the\nIncome-Tax Act. It\nestablishes that a clear\nprecedent that intentional\nconcealment of income is\npunishable regardless of\nsubsequent disclosures or\nrevised returns. The court\nexclusively analysed\nPrevious precedents to\nsolidify its stance on the\ninterpretation\nand\napplicability of sections\n13(5) and 271(1)(c) of the\nAct. The assessee himself\nadmitted

PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

14A of the Act in computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act on the basis that section 115JB of the Act is a complete code by itself and the importing of such disallowances into the scope of adjustment of book profit is not permissible. 9. Short credit of tax deducted at source The learned AO erred

M/S. M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SRIRANGAPATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Without prejudice. the learned AO also erred in initiating penalty proceedings under both section 271AA and section 271G of the Act without appreciating the varying scope of operation of these provisions. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal

M/S. M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SRIRANGAPATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Without prejudice. the learned AO also erred in initiating penalty proceedings under both section 271AA and section 271G of the Act without appreciating the varying scope of operation of these provisions. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal

M/S. M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SRIRANGAPATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Without prejudice. the learned AO also erred in initiating penalty proceedings under both section 271AA and section 271G of the Act without appreciating the varying scope of operation of these provisions. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal

M/S. M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SRIRANGAPATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Without prejudice. the learned AO also erred in initiating penalty proceedings under both section 271AA and section 271G of the Act without appreciating the varying scope of operation of these provisions. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal

M/S M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SRIRANGAPATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Without prejudice. the learned AO also erred in initiating penalty proceedings under both section 271AA and section 271G of the Act without appreciating the varying scope of operation of these provisions. 13. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal

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

14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Rules and initiated penalty u/s 270A of the Act for the misreporting of income as per sec. 270A(9)(a) of the Act. The assessee did not file appeal against the Page 4 of 10 assessment order and the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and show

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of provision for leave encashment of Rs.11,08,482/- which was claimed by the assessee by debiting the same to the Profit and Loss Account. It is an admitted fact that the assessee in the note at the end of the computation has stated that the provisions of section

M/S PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

14A of the Act in computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act on the basis that section 115JB of the Act is a complete code by itself and the importing of such disallowances into the scope of adjustment of book profit is not permissible. 10. Short credit of tax deducted at source The learned AO erred

M/S. PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

14A of the Act in computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act on the basis that section 115JB of the Act is a complete code by itself and the importing of such disallowances into the scope of adjustment of book profit is not permissible. 10. Short credit of tax deducted at source The learned AO erred

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

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

penalties\nrelated\nto\nincome\nconcealment under the\nIncome-Tax Act. It\nestablishes that a clear\nprecedent that intentional\nconcealment of income is\npunishable regardless of\nsubsequent disclosures or\nrevised returns. The court\nexhaustively analysed\nPrevious precedents to\nsolidify its stance on the\ninterpretation\nand\napplicability of sections\n139(5) and 271(1)(c) of the\nAct. The assessee himself\nadmitted

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

SRI.RATAN BABULAL LATH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared