SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH, HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

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

153A of the Act vide order dated 29.02.2016, wherein the assessee’s returned income of Rs.6,01,630/- was accepted. Penalty proceedings were simultaneously initiated by issue of notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.02.2016 and the proceedings resulted in the AO passing an order dated 23.08.2016 levying penalty of Rs.70,976/- under section 271(1

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH, HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

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

153A of the Act vide order dated 29.02.2016, wherein the assessee’s returned income of Rs.6,01,630/- was accepted. Penalty proceedings were simultaneously initiated by issue of notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.02.2016 and the proceedings resulted in the AO passing an order dated 23.08.2016 levying penalty of Rs.70,976/- under section 271(1

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

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

153A of the Act vide order dated 29.02.2016, wherein the assessee’s returned income of Rs.6,01,630/- was accepted. Penalty proceedings were simultaneously initiated by issue of notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.02.2016 and the proceedings resulted in the AO passing an order dated 23.08.2016 levying penalty of Rs.70,976/- under section 271(1

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

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

153A of the Act vide order dated 29.02.2016, wherein the assessee’s returned income of Rs.6,01,630/- was accepted. Penalty proceedings were simultaneously initiated by issue of notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.02.2016 and the proceedings resulted in the AO passing an order dated 23.08.2016 levying penalty of Rs.70,976/- under section 271(1

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

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

153A of the Act vide order dated 29.02.2016, wherein the assessee’s returned income of Rs.6,01,630/- was accepted. Penalty proceedings were simultaneously initiated by issue of notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.02.2016 and the proceedings resulted in the AO passing an order dated 23.08.2016 levying penalty of Rs.70,976/- under section 271(1

SRI RATHAN BABULAL LATH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated for concealment of income.) 2.1 Against this assessee carried this appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by observing as follows:- “15. Perusal of assessment order shows that appellant during AY 2009-10 had given an amount of Rs. 60 crore

SRI. NARASIMHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

section 271(l)(c) of the Act was opposed to law and to the principles of natural justice in that the submissions of the appellant had not been brought out and considered and accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the penalty levied u/ s.27l(1)(c) of the Act is liable to be cancelled

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. xi. The Assessee have right reserve to Amend modify delete and make any additional grounds of appeal. 2.3 During the appellate proceedings the assessee raised additional grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji as under: 1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice u/s.1 53C(1

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. xi. The Assessee have right reserve to Amend modify delete and make any additional grounds of appeal. 2.3 During the appellate proceedings the assessee raised additional grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji as under: 1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice u/s.1 53C(1

SRI RAMAIAH REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsri C Ramaiah Reddy, Ramaiah Reddy Colony, Sector ‘C’, Basavanagar, Marthahalli, Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs.

153A r.w 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26/2/2013, wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.114,42,43,772/- as against revised declared income of Rs.23,97,25,547/- due to various additions made therein, In the order of assessment the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) observed that the assessee had only declared the sum of Rs.50 lakhs

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA ,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 143(3) dated 26/03/2013, was itself filed with a delay of 125 days. This fact is not mentioned in the affidavit, even though it was stated in para 5 that the Income Tax Practitioner ("HP"), Shri Sudhindra appeared on behalf of the appellant during the assessment proceedings before the AO. In addition, the fact that same ITP also appeared

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 143(3) dated 26/03/2013, was itself filed with a delay of 125 days. This fact is not mentioned in the affidavit, even though it was stated in para 5 that the Income Tax Practitioner ("HP"), Shri Sudhindra appeared on behalf of the appellant during the assessment proceedings before the AO. In addition, the fact that same ITP also appeared

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 143(3) dated 26/03/2013, was itself filed with a delay of 125 days. This fact is not mentioned in the affidavit, even though it was stated in para 5 that the Income Tax Practitioner ("HP"), Shri Sudhindra appeared on behalf of the appellant during the assessment proceedings before the AO. In addition, the fact that same ITP also appeared