DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 11 & 12 to the assessee and assessed the income of assessee as business income. Therefore the total income of the assessee was assessed at such business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 11 & 12 to the assessee and assessed the income of assessee as business income. Therefore the total income of the assessee was assessed at such business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 11 & 12 to the assessee and assessed the income of assessee as business income. Therefore the total income of the assessee was assessed at such business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 11 & 12 to the assessee and assessed the income of assessee as business income. Therefore the total income of the assessee was assessed at such business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 11 & 12 to the assessee and assessed the income of assessee as business income. Therefore the total income of the assessee was assessed at such business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 11 & 12 to the assessee and assessed the income of assessee as business income. Therefore the total income of the assessee was assessed at such business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 11 & 12 to the assessee and assessed the income of assessee as business income. Therefore the total income of the assessee was assessed at such business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, all these 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 11 & 12 to the assessee and assessed the income of assessee as business income. Therefore the total income of the assessee was assessed at such business income and accordingly the AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceedings, the reply of the assessee was not considered

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

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 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the variousITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels

GOPALIYENGAR MADABUSHI MURALIDHAR, ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3 Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar 5. Other grounds: 5.1. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. The interest so levied, being erroneous, is required to be deleted. 5.2. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

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

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 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

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

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 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

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

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 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

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

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 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

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

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 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

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

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 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

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

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 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

161 taxmann.com 306 (SC) & CIT vs RRJ Securities Limited (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Delhi) and requested the Ld. CIT(A) to set aside the assessment order for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 as they are barred by limitation. 21. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the plea of assessee citing the reason that as the AO for the searched

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

161 taxmann.com 306 (SC) & CIT vs RRJ Securities Limited (2016) 380 ITR 612 (Delhi) and requested the Ld. CIT(A) to set aside the assessment order for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 as they are barred by limitation. 21. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the plea of assessee citing the reason that as the AO for the searched