HARSHAVARDHAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all 13 appeals of the assessee are allowed

2. First, we take up and decide Six Appeals in respect of Penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271B of I T Act, 1961. This penalty was imposed for this reason that the assessee did not furnish Tax Audit Report for these years as required u/s 44AB of I T Act, 1961. The amount of Penalty

SRI. K. VENKATARAMI REDDY,DAVANGERE vs. JCIT, DAVANGERE

In the result, assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazshri K Venkatarami Reddy, #1848/44-45, Iii Cross, Vinayaka Badavane, Vidhyanagar, Davangere. . Appellant Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Davangere Range, Davangere. . Respondent Pan - Avpp2429M. Appellant By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Acit Date Of Hearing : 22-11-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-11-2017 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Davangere Dated 29/2/2016; Partly Upholding The Orders Of The Jcit, Davangere Range Dated 3/2/2014 Levying Penalty U/S Ita No.945/B/16 2

2. The order of penalty passed u/s 271[1][c] of the Act is bad in taw as the notice issued under section 274 rws 271 of the Act is not discernable whether the penalty proceedings is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant

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

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

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

2) issued and\nassessment pending u/s 143(3)\nPending regular assessment\nproceedings would abate and would\nconverge/merge in proceedings u/s\n153A.\nAccordingly the scope of\nassessment under section 153A\nwould cover the pending return\n6. Assessment u/s 143(3)\ncompleted.\nSince regular assessment\nproceedings have been completed &\nare not pending, there would be no\nabatement of proceedings.\nAO loses jurisdiction

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

INVTEVA PRODUCTS INDIA AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) ( c) is premature. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. We have to decide ground Nos. 6,7,11 to 14, 16, 24 to 28 and additional Grounds 31 & 32. He also submitted that in last column of the same Ground wise summary, the arguments of the assessee are noted and these grounds can be decided

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

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

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

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

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