R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

153A, but which was not shown in the return of income u/s 139 in view of explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c). Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the assessee's conduct in discharging tax liability and finalization of ITA Nos.352 - 357/Bang/2021 Page 12 of 30 assessment proceedings, 1 hereby levy minimum penalty

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, 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 ,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 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. 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

153A of the Act, the assessee adopted net asset method of arriving at his undisclosed income in each year and declared additional income for each year. Except some minor variation during the assessment year 2008-09, the returns of income filed by the assessee were accepted in all these four assessment years. Consequently the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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

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, 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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3) (1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHNARAYANA, DEVENAHALLI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

153A of the Act. The AO imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act holding that the assessee was guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) cancelled the order of the AO imposing penalty for the following reasons: “8. It is noticed that in the all the years under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3)(1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHANARAYANA , DEVENAHALLI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

153A of the Act. The AO imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act holding that the assessee was guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) cancelled the order of the AO imposing penalty for the following reasons: “8. It is noticed that in the all the years under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3)(1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHANARAYANA, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

153A of the Act. The AO imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act holding that the assessee was guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) cancelled the order of the AO imposing penalty for the following reasons: “8. It is noticed that in the all the years under