THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , BAGALKOT vs. M/S RYTARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITHA , BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed, while the CO is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). In the Cross objection the Assessee has submitted that the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act has to be quashed on the ground that the show cause notice issued u/s.274 of the Act, before imposing penalty does not specify the exact charge against the Assessee and therefore even

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

150 ITR 105) / (15 Taxman 37-46 Held 37- 38 539) (Kerala High Court) 10. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of 47-59 8 59 Perlos Telecommunication & Electronic Components India (P) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (IT Appeal No.1037 (Mad.) of 2013, dated 18.11.2013) ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore Page 6 of 22 11. ITAT Chennai Bench

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

150 ITR 105) / (15 Taxman 37-46 Held 37- 38 539) (Kerala High Court) 10. ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of 47-59 8 59 Perlos Telecommunication & Electronic Components India (P) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (IT Appeal No.1037 (Mad.) of 2013, dated 18.11.2013) ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore Page 6 of 22 11. ITAT Chennai Bench

MAHESHWARAPPA MUNIRAMU,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

u/s 269SS of the Act and accepted his share of sale consideration of Rs.10 lakhs in cash. This bonafide belief clearly established from the fact that the assessee had deposited the cash received on sale of immovable property into his bank account maintained with canara bank & thereafter deposited/transferred the same to the bank account opened under the capital gains account

BOMMARABETTU MADHU SUDHANA ACHARYA ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, UDUPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

271 D was not exigible. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the circumstances that prompted the Appellant to receive on sale of sites cash from buyers and ought to have refrained from levying the penalty 5. On the facts the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the income declared under the head capital gain

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

150\n28,85,46,841\n36,75,25,025\n33,97,88,690\nNote: AY 2018 '19, being the year of search u/s 132, the return of income was filed u/s 139(1)\n10.2 The details of undisclosed income as per the return of\nincome filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 153A, for\nthe

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein assessee required to show utmost good faith and must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an appeal. In the absence

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein assessee required to show utmost good faith and must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an appeal. In the absence

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein assessee required to show utmost good faith and must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an appeal. In the absence

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein assessee required to show utmost good faith and must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an appeal. In the absence

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein assessee required to show utmost good faith and must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an appeal. In the absence

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein assessee required to show utmost good faith and must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an appeal. In the absence

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein assessee required to show utmost good faith and must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an appeal. In the absence

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

150/- in its return of income as admitted during the search. From above it is clear case of concealment of income by the assessee and hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

150/- in its return of income as admitted during the search. From above it is clear case of concealment of income by the assessee and hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

150/- in its return of income as admitted during the search. From above it is clear case of concealment of income by the assessee and hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

150/- in its return of income as admitted during the search. From above it is clear case of concealment of income by the assessee and hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

150/- in its return of income as admitted during the search. From above it is clear case of concealment of income by the assessee and hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12