RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

BHADRAVATHI RAMALINGASETTY MANJUNATH SETTY,BHADRAVATHI vs. ITO WARD-1 TPS , SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

271-G' by Finance Act, 2015 (No. 20 of 2015), dated 14.5.2015.][, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272-A, sub-section (1) of section 272-AA or ] [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 26 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).][section 272-B or] [ Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

271(1)(c) as order passed has been barred by limitation u/s 275. The assessee during the appellate proceedings submitted that Proviso (b) of Sec.275 (1A) and sec.275(1)(a) prohibit passing an order imposing the penalty after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the order of the ITAT is received

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

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

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income &\n27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the\nprovisions of Section

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income &\n27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the\nprovisions of Section

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income &\n27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the\nprovisions of Section

SHRISHAILAMALLIKARJUN TRADERS,NARGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

271-G' by Finance Act, 2015 (No. 20 of 2015), dated 14.5.2015.][, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272-A, sub-section (1) of section 272-AA or ] [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 26 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).][section 272-B or] [ Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section