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

BASAVARAJ LAXMANAGOUDA BIRADAR,VIJAYAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIJAYAPURA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

U/s. 271(1)(c) works out to Rs.25,00,273/- and maximum penalty (300%) leviable of Rs.75,00,819/-. Therefore, I hereby levy penalty at the rate of 100% of the tax evaded on account of concealment of income, I impose minimum penalty of Rs.25,00,273/-(Rupees Twenty five Lakhs Two Hundred seventy three) under section

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for all these years are directed to be deleted and all the 5 appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA Nos.741, 743, 745 & 747/Bang/2025 [Penalty u/s 271B of the Act] 18. ITA Nos.741/Bang/2025 for AY 2011-12 is also filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for all these years are directed to be deleted and all the 5 appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA Nos.741, 743, 745 & 747/Bang/2025 [Penalty u/s 271B of the Act] 18. ITA Nos.741/Bang/2025 for AY 2011-12 is also filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for all these years are directed to be deleted and all the 5 appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA Nos.741, 743, 745 & 747/Bang/2025 [Penalty u/s 271B of the Act] 18. ITA Nos.741/Bang/2025 for AY 2011-12 is also filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for all these years are directed to be deleted and all the 5 appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA Nos.741, 743, 745 & 747/Bang/2025 [Penalty u/s 271B of the Act] 18. ITA Nos.741/Bang/2025 for AY 2011-12 is also filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for all these years are directed to be deleted and all the 5 appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA Nos.741, 743, 745 & 747/Bang/2025 [Penalty u/s 271B of the Act] 18. ITA Nos.741/Bang/2025 for AY 2011-12 is also filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for all these years are directed to be deleted and all the 5 appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA Nos.741, 743, 745 & 747/Bang/2025 [Penalty u/s 271B of the Act] 18. ITA Nos.741/Bang/2025 for AY 2011-12 is also filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for all these years are directed to be deleted and all the 5 appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA Nos.741, 743, 745 & 747/Bang/2025 [Penalty u/s 271B of the Act] 18. ITA Nos.741/Bang/2025 for AY 2011-12 is also filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for all these years are directed to be deleted and all the 5 appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA Nos.741, 743, 745 & 747/Bang/2025 [Penalty u/s 271B of the Act] 18. ITA Nos.741/Bang/2025 for AY 2011-12 is also filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for all these years are directed to be deleted and all the 5 appeals of the assessee are allowed. ITA Nos.741, 743, 745 & 747/Bang/2025 [Penalty u/s 271B of the Act] 18. ITA Nos.741/Bang/2025 for AY 2011-12 is also filed by the assessee against the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI CGANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that