HUBLI SARAKU SAGANIKEDRARA SAHAKARI PATTINA SANGHA NIYAMITA,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for both these years

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

271 (1) (C) is initiated and issue the notice. However, in paragraph number 6 of the penalty order the assessing officer has specifically held that assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income. It was so that assessee has claimed deduction under section 80 P of ₹ 3,260,874/– which was computed by the learned assessing officer considering only the interest

HUBLI SARAKU SAGANIKEDARARA SAHAKARI PATTINA SANGHA NIYAMITA,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for both these years

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

271 (1) (C) is initiated and issue the notice. However, in paragraph number 6 of the penalty order the assessing officer has specifically held that assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income. It was so that assessee has claimed deduction under section 80 P of ₹ 3,260,874/– which was computed by the learned assessing officer considering only the interest

SRI. GANDHINAGARA NARAYANA HARIKRISHNA RAI,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

260/-. Further the assessee filed a revised return of income on 09.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 9,50,410/-. The case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 04.05.2018. The assessee filed his return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 on 16.05.2018 declaring

SRI. GANDHINAGARA NARAYANA HARIKRISHNA RAI,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

260/-. Further the assessee filed a revised return of income on 09.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 9,50,410/-. The case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 04.05.2018. The assessee filed his return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 on 16.05.2018 declaring

SRI. GANDHINAGARA NARAYANA HARIKRISHNA RAI,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-5(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

260/-. Further the assessee filed a revised return of income on 09.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 9,50,410/-. The case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 04.05.2018. The assessee filed his return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 on 16.05.2018 declaring

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section .271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Page 5 of 40 The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend

G R CHANDRASHEKAR NAIDU,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

260 for A.Y. 2019-2020. The assessee was served with intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act determining total income at Rs.55,39,090 for A.Y.2018-2019 and Rs.97,65,100 for A.Y. 2019-2020. The reason for the difference between the returned income and the income determined u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act was on account of disallowance

G R CHANDRASHEKAR NAIDU,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

260 for A.Y. 2019-2020. The assessee was served with intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act determining total income at Rs.55,39,090 for A.Y.2018-2019 and Rs.97,65,100 for A.Y. 2019-2020. The reason for the difference between the returned income and the income determined u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act was on account of disallowance

ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL (HUF),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

260/- as an unexplained transaction under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of sale of long - term shares of a listed entity. There has been no unexplained credit and the explanation with respect to the credited amount has been provided, thus making the addition u/s 68 completely erroneous and liable to be deleted. (b) The lower authorities

SANTHOSH DEVI AGARWAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

260/- as an unexplained transaction under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of sale of long - term shares of a listed entity. There has been no unexplained credit and the explanation with respect to the credited amount has been provided, thus making the addition u/s 68 completely erroneous and liable to be deleted. (b) The lower authorities

SNEHLATHA AGARWAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

260/- as an unexplained transaction under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of sale of long - term shares of a listed entity. There has been no unexplained credit and the explanation with respect to the credited amount has been provided, thus making the addition u/s 68 completely erroneous and liable to be deleted. (b) The lower authorities

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

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is premature. 4. With regard to the legal issue relating to validity of the assessment order, the Ld A.R submitted that the impugned assessment order has been passed by the AO beyond the time limit IT(TP)A Nos.502 & 2837/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 45 prescribed in sec.153 of the Act. We notice that though

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4.2. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts, in erroneous consideration of taxable income in assessment order vis a vis Computation sheet while calculating the taxable income and tax thereon. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit substitute or amend the above grounds

EIT SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise. the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal. 15. Relief a. The Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned final assessment order be set aside”. 2. Ground