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 106 (w.e.f

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

SRI. CHINNAYELLAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR, ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

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 106 (w.e.f

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\nallowed

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

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

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

DAWALSAHEB BABUSAHEB SULTANBHAI,DHARWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Dawalsaheb Babusaheb Sultanbhai, Vs. Ito, 1A, Mehaboobnagar, Ward – 1(1), Dharwad – 580 008. Hubli. Pan : Aqzps 4249 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024

271 B of the Act for default u/s 44AB. The penalty is confirmed and all the grounds are dismissed.” 6. Aggrieved by the Order of the CIT(A) confirming the imposition of penalty under section 271B

MAHESHWARAPPA MUNIRAMU,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271H, section 271-I, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA, or section 272B or sub-section

BOMMARABETTU MADHU SUDHANA ACHARYA ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, UDUPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271H, section 271-I, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA, or section 272B or sub-section