RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not automatic; the word used

M. VEERABHADRAIAH,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for A

271(1)(c) has to be construed strictly. Unless it is found that there is actually a concealment or non- disclosure of the particulars of income penalty cannot be imposed. There is no such concealment or non-disclosure as the assessee had made a complete disclosure in the IT return and offered the surrendered amount for the purposes

SMT. B. BHAGYALAKSHMI vs. D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3),

In the result, assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarsmt. Bhagyalakshmi, W/O B Shreeramulu, Vidyagiri, Sb Colony, Club Road, Near Kumaraswamy Temple, Bellary. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore. . Respondent Pan - Ajnpb 7530N. Appellant By : Shri Lakshmi Narayan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, Cit Date Of Hearing : 23-3-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-3-2018 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Bangalore Dated 30/10/2013; Upholding The Orders Of The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore Dated 28/6/2010 Levying Penalty Of Rs.18,00,000/- U/S Ita No.162/B/14 2

5A u/s 271(1)(c) is not applicable to the assessee as it is applicable only to a person in whose case search was initiated u/s 132A of the act and therefore, there is neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant craves leave to add modify, or delete any of the grounds before the commencement

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

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

5A to section 271(1) of the Act was clearly applicable and therefore penalty has to be imposed. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessments, initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of particulars of income, whereas in the show cause notice the AO has specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

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

5A to section 271(1) of the Act was clearly applicable and therefore penalty has to be imposed. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessments, initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of particulars of income, whereas in the show cause notice the AO has specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

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

5A to section 271(1) of the Act was clearly applicable and therefore penalty has to be imposed. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessments, initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of particulars of income, whereas in the show cause notice the AO has specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

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

5A to section 271(1) of the Act was clearly applicable and therefore penalty has to be imposed. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessments, initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of particulars of income, whereas in the show cause notice the AO has specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

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

5A to section 271(1) of the Act was clearly applicable and therefore penalty has to be imposed. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessments, initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of particulars of income, whereas in the show cause notice the AO has specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

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

5A to section 271(1) of the Act was clearly applicable and therefore penalty has to be imposed. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessments, initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of particulars of income, whereas in the show cause notice the AO has specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars

MAHENDRA B CHOWHAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

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

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

5A to section 271(1) of the Act was clearly applicable and therefore penalty has to be imposed. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the order of assessments, initiation of penalty proceedings was for concealment of particulars of income, whereas in the show cause notice the AO has specified furnishing of inaccurate particulars

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

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 4, BANGALORE vs. M/S. MAHINDRA ELECTRIC VEHICLES LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied a penalty of Rs.11,00,00,000/-. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. At the time of hearing, it was brought to our notice that the assessee went in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.641/Bang/2017 that Tribunal vide order dated 14.9.2018 has allowed