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section 40 A (3) should have not been revoked. 15.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

M/S.RAICON ENGINEERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.316/Bang/2017 is allowed, while ITA

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

section 40A(3) of the Act. The plea of the assessee was that when the assessee has declared in the return of income the total income after making disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of the Act and when such return of income is accepted by the AO, there was no case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271

M/S.RAICON ENGINEERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.316/Bang/2017 is allowed, while ITA

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

section 40A(3) of the Act. The plea of the assessee was that when the assessee has declared in the return of income the total income after making disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of the Act and when such return of income is accepted by the AO, there was no case for imposition of penalty u/s. 271

M/S. P.R. FORGINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K

3 applies. Here, the tax sought to be evaded will be the tax chargeable on the entire total income assessed. " 10. A combined reading of the Committee's ecommendations and the Circular makes the position clear that Explanation 4(a) to Section 271 (1) (c) intended to levy the penalty not only in a case where after addition of concealed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

40A(3) and insufficiency of\nvouchers – Rs.17,92,25,000/-\nd) Addition made based on the declaration given by the Director – Rs.20\nLakhs\ne) Labelling Expenses – Rs.23,60,587/-\nf) Addition based on the seizure of cash – Rs.63 Lakhs\ng) Disallowance u/s.14A – Rs.70,79,282/-\n7.\nThe AO made the additions based on the results of the search and\nalso

SMT JAYALAKSHMI ,HASSAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesmt. Jayalakshmi, Prop. Vijayalakshmi Granites, No.371, Industrial Area, H.N.Pura Road, Hassan. … Appellant Pan:Abgph 7269 E Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.Srinivasan, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act'].

section 40(A)(3) r.w. rule 6DD made disallowance u/s 40A(3) and also unaccounted purchases and assessed the total income of Rs.7,69,300/- vide order u/s 143(3) dated 31/12/2007. But the assessment order was set aside u/s 263 order and the AO, as per the directions of the CIT u/s 263, passed the assessment order u/s

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

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

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

40a(ii) for non deduction of TDS Depreciation 9,220 Advisory fee on sale of shares- 126,05,71,120 4,00,00,000 reconsidered 125,56,19,475 Less : Depreciation allowable u/s. 3,750 32(1) (As per statement enclosed) Profit on sale of investments 122,09,92,716 122,09,96,466 3,46,23,009 Taxable Income

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

40a(ii) for non deduction of TDS Depreciation 9,220 Advisory fee on sale of shares- 126,05,71,120 4,00,00,000 reconsidered 125,56,19,475 Less : Depreciation allowable u/s. 3,750 32(1) (As per statement enclosed) Profit on sale of investments 122,09,92,716 122,09,96,466 3,46,23,009 Taxable Income

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

40a(ii) for non deduction of TDS Depreciation 9,220 Advisory fee on sale of shares- 126,05,71,120 4,00,00,000 reconsidered 125,56,19,475 Less : Depreciation allowable u/s. 3,750 32(1) (As per statement enclosed) Profit on sale of investments 122,09,92,716 122,09,96,466 3,46,23,009 Taxable Income