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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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)(a) of Income

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

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)(a) of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1) , BANGALORE vs. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES-VST DIESEL ENGINES PRIVATE LIMITED, MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

4(1)(2), Bangalore based on the fact that the Assessee had not made suo-moto submission regarding non-eligibility of brought forward loss either in its Return of Income or before the Assessing Officer as well as on the ground that assessee was not eligible to claim brought forward losses and accordingly furnished inaccurate particulars of Income during

JICE ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

271 D of the I.T. Act 1961. Accordingly, the Addl.CIT invoked the provisions of section 271D and levied penalty at Rs.15,64,50,000 for accepting loan in cash in violation of provisions of section 269SS as per section 271D of the Act. 19. The main contention of the ld. AR is that the transaction is genuine

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

271 D of the I.T. Act 1961. Accordingly, the Addl.CIT invoked the provisions of section 271D and levied penalty at Rs.15,64,50,000 for accepting loan in cash in violation of provisions of section 269SS as per section 271D of the Act. 19. The main contention of the ld. AR is that the transaction is genuine

SRI. PADMANABHA MANGALORE CHOWTA,MANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017 – 18

4. The levy of penalty u/s 271-D of the Act is bad in law in as much as the appellant has not committed any default u/s.269SS actionable u/s 271-D of the Act-and the National Faceless Assessment Center has not established that the appellant committed any such default actionable u/s.271D of the Act, deliberately and consequently, the impugned

SRI VENKATESWARA DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble High Courts have further said that it affects the contention of the revenue the in case of every return where claim made were not accepted by assessing officer for any reason the assess will invite the penalties.” 3. Ground No.1 in ITA No.1910/Bang/2019 is reproduced below: “The AO has erred in adding

SRI. VENKATESWARA DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble High Courts have further said that it affects the contention of the revenue the in case of every return where claim made were not accepted by assessing officer for any reason the assess will invite the penalties.” 3. Ground No.1 in ITA No.1910/Bang/2019 is reproduced below: “The AO has erred in adding

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

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 to Sh. Navneet Sinhania

TELELOGIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

u/s 10A and 10B was no longer in the nature of exemption but it is in the nature of deduction. By considering the amendment/substitution of sec. 10A and 10B vide Finance Act, 2000 w.e.f. 1/4/2001, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court vide judgment in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd.(supra) has held in paras.16 to 23 as under

M/S ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT (LTU) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3250/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The first grounds for our consideration are ground Nos.1, 2 & 3, which reads as follows:- 1. “Impugned order of learned ("Ld.") AO/Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO") and directions of Ld. DRP are based on incorrect appreciation of facts and incorrect interpretation of law and therefore

YASH VARDHAN ARYA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) WARD-1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also initiated on account of filing wrong particulars of income and for concealing the particulars of income for the year under house property income.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has raised this issue before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper book comprising of 213 pages

M/S. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

271(1) (c ) wherein, Hon’ble High Court held that, additional evidences were filed by assessee, six years after assessment and assessee did not substantiate delay with a reasonable cause. 2.3.4. On careful reading of decisions relied on by Ld.CIT DR, it is clear that facts in each case, are different. In these decisions, additional evidences were in support

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

172 Taxman 244-246 19 246 258) (Delhi High Court) 31 CIT Vs .Shelly Products (129 Taxman 271) 247-258 Head 247 (Supreme Court) note 4. The Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, assessee has filed the return

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

172 Taxman 244-246 19 246 258) (Delhi High Court) 31 CIT Vs .Shelly Products (129 Taxman 271) 247-258 Head 247 (Supreme Court) note 4. The Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, assessee has filed the return

M/S.TUPPADAHALLI ENERGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the IT Act, 1961 as per the directions of DRP. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under. “The grounds stated hereunder are independent of, and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant submits as under: 1 The Assessment Order issued by the Assessing Officer and the Transfer Pricing Order issued