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

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

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,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

JOHN DISTILLERIES 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

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

JOHN DEVELOPERS,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. 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)

150 as\ncash paid over and above three bills to M/s Patel & Co.,\nand extrapolating it to entire quantity of tendu leaf\npurchased from all vendors during the impugned year and\nmaking an addition of Rs.1,55,45,376/- even after noticing\nthat the said amount was adjusted by M/s Patel & Co, in\ntheir subsequent invoice and after conceding that

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is\ninitiated separately.\n14.2 Regarding bogus carriage outward expenses the ld. D.R.\nsubmitted that during the course of the search, it was noticed that\nJDPL was inflating the carriage outwards to certain extent as the\nsame modus followed under the head of sales promotion expenses.\nDuring the course of the search

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. RAMCHANDRA NAVEEN, BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the learned\nCIT(A)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately.\n19. On the basis of above observation of the assessee, AO made addition\nunder section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure for the Assessment\nYears as under\n Assessment Year\nAmount\n2016-17\n19,65,000/-\n2017-18\n16,04,500/-\n20. During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee had raised

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

150 as\ncash paid over and above three bills to M/s Patel & Co.,\nand extrapolating it to entire quantity of tendu leaf\npurchased from all vendors during the impugned year and\nmaking an addition of Rs.1,55,45,376/- even after noticing\nthat the said amount was adjusted by M/s Patel & Co, in\ntheir subsequent invoice and after conceding that

M/S. JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

section 153A\nwould cover the pending return\n13.2 As seen from the above table, if the regular assessment\nproceedings have been completed and are not pending as on the\ndate of search, there would be no abatement of proceedings without\nany seized material. Hence, concluded assessment cannot be\nreopened without any seized/incriminating material. Being so, in\nthe absence

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. RAMCHANDRA NAVEEN, BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the learned\nCIT(A)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately.\n\n19. On the basis of above observation of the assessee, AO made addition\nunder section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure for the Assessment\nYears as under\n\n Assessment Year\nAmount\n2016-17\n2017-18\n19,65,000/-\n16,04,500/-\n\n20. During the course of appellate proceedings

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

150/- in its return of income as admitted during the\nsearch. From above it is clear case of concealment of income by the\nassessee and hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is\ninitiated separately.\n\n14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business\nthe ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document

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

150 as\ncash paid over and above three bills to M/s Patel & Co.,\nand extrapolating it to entire quantity of tendu leaf\npurchased from all vendors during the impugned year and\nmaking an addition of Rs.1,55,45,376/- even after noticing\nthat the said amount was adjusted by M/s Patel & Co, in\ntheir subsequent invoice and after conceding that

MRS. SABENA PRAKASH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

penalty\nproceedings under the provisions of section 274 read with section 270A of the Act on the\nfacts and circumstances of the case.\n12. The Appellant craves to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.\n13. In view of the above and other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing of the\nappeal