M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

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

271 (Delhi - Trib.) (para 20) {CLI 2 – Pg.\n629}.\n\n4. 11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 40A(3) and rule 6DD(j). Since we have agreed with the primary finding recorded by the Tribunal, we think it is not necessary for us to go into the alternative finding recorded by the Tribunal. With these observations, questions Nos. 1 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 40A(3) and rule 6DD(j). Since we have agreed with the primary finding recorded by the Tribunal, we think it is not necessary for us to go into the alternative finding recorded by the Tribunal. With these observations, questions Nos. 1 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 40A(3) and rule 6DD(j). Since we have agreed with the primary finding recorded by the Tribunal, we think it is not necessary for us to go into the alternative finding recorded by the Tribunal. With these observations, questions Nos. 1 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against

PURADAKOPPALU BATTEGOWDA KARIGOWDA,MANDYA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 40A(3) and rule 6DD(j). Since we have agreed with the primary finding recorded by the Tribunal, we think it is not necessary for us to go into the alternative finding recorded by the Tribunal. With these observations, questions Nos. 1 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against

SMT. CHANDRA MOOLCHAND JAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16

section 40 A (3) should have not been revoked. 15. That the Interest u/s 234 (B) and u/s 234 (C) shall be waived off as Tax itself is not payable. 16. That penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) shall not be applicable as there is no concealment of Income. In the light of the above facts the Assessee prays the Honorable

MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED ,MYSORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, , MYSORE

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

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) was passed on 13.03.2025 for the assessment year 2014- 15 and the staff of the appellant informed the committee regarding receipt of the said order. 11. The committee approached the Chartered Accountant and sought for further course of action. The Chartered Accountant logged into the e filing portal and informed that the appeal filed

MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED,MYSORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

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

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) was passed on 13.03.2025 for the assessment year 2014- 15 and the staff of the appellant informed the committee regarding receipt of the said order. 11. The committee approached the Chartered Accountant and sought for further course of action. The Chartered Accountant logged into the e filing portal and informed that the appeal filed

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

40a(ia)), payments made in subsequent year in respect of these provisions and details of tax deducted at source on such payments along with proof of deposit of such TDS into Govt. account were called for and systematically verified. Since, the transactions were enormous in respect of these four assessment years, verifications were carried out randomly for different months

DELIVERHEALTH SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS NUANCE TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the act mechanically and without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

40A(3) to augment trade. After granting this facility, we are of the view that the department cannot insist the assessees to get the suppliers confirm to the department about the supplies made to the assessee and the payments received by them. In our view, the assessee should be taken to have discharged their burden by furnishing the copies