IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

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

41,737/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.2 For Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring income of Rs.4,18,080/-. Pursuant to the iussue of notice issued under section 153A of the Act dated 18.10.2013; consequent to the search action conducted on 01.05.2013, in the case on hand

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH, HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

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

41,737/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.2 For Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring income of Rs.4,18,080/-. Pursuant to the iussue of notice issued under section 153A of the Act dated 18.10.2013; consequent to the search action conducted on 01.05.2013, in the case on hand

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH, HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

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

41,737/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.2 For Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring income of Rs.4,18,080/-. Pursuant to the iussue of notice issued under section 153A of the Act dated 18.10.2013; consequent to the search action conducted on 01.05.2013, in the case on hand

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

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

41,737/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.2 For Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring income of Rs.4,18,080/-. Pursuant to the iussue of notice issued under section 153A of the Act dated 18.10.2013; consequent to the search action conducted on 01.05.2013, in the case on hand

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

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

41,737/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.2 For Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring income of Rs.4,18,080/-. Pursuant to the iussue of notice issued under section 153A of the Act dated 18.10.2013; consequent to the search action conducted on 01.05.2013, in the case on hand

SHRI. AJITH R,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

41 taxmann.com 496 (Kar). In this decision, on identical facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka took a view that there is no recording of proper satisfaction, if in the assessment order the observations are only for initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

41 taxmann.com 496 (Kar). In this decision, on identical facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka took a view that there is no recording of proper satisfaction, if in the assessment order the observations are only for initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE--2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

41 taxmann.com 496 (Kar). In this decision, on identical facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka took a view that there is no recording of proper satisfaction, if in the assessment order the observations are only for initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions

K.RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

41 taxmann.com 496 (Kar). In this decision, on identical facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka took a view that there is no recording of proper satisfaction, if in the assessment order the observations are only for initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions

K RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

41 taxmann.com 496 (Kar). In this decision, on identical facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka took a view that there is no recording of proper satisfaction, if in the assessment order the observations are only for initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

41 taxmann.com 496 (Kar). In this decision, on identical facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka took a view that there is no recording of proper satisfaction, if in the assessment order the observations are only for initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions

R.AJITH ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

41 taxmann.com 496 (Kar). In this decision, on identical facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka took a view that there is no recording of proper satisfaction, if in the assessment order the observations are only for initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions

SHRI. AJITH R,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

41 taxmann.com 496 (Kar). In this decision, on identical facts, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka took a view that there is no recording of proper satisfaction, if in the assessment order the observations are only for initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions

SMT B SUMATHY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2005-06 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2005-06 Smt. B. Sumathy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, #T-401, Poorva Park, Ward – 1(2), Now Jeevana Halli Main Road, Ito, Ward – 1[2][2], Cox Town, Bangalore-560 005. Bangalore. Pan : Aseps 7079 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. T. Chandrasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2019

41,427/- on account of re-computation of capital gains by virtue of denying the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 54F of the Act. 3.2 Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously vide notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date viz., 26.03.2007 in respect

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

41 of 73 admission, he had proceeded on a mistaken understanding or on misconception of facts or untrue facts, such admission cannot be relied upon without considering the aforesaid contention. In our opinion, the voluntary admission is not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong but they do raise an estoppel

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. xi. The Assessee have right reserve to Amend modify delete and make any additional grounds of appeal. 2.3 During the appellate proceedings the assessee raised additional grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji as under: 1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice u/s.1