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

section 143(3) of the Act passed by the learned AO who has made additions only on the basis of assumptions, surmise and conjectures.” Basavaraj Laxmanagouda Biradar, Vijayapura Page 7 of 10 8.1 The crux of above grounds is that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. The facts of the issue are that

SRI. PANATI VIKRAMDEVA REDDY,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68,461 and other income. The assessee offered income declaring taxable income of Rs.60,79,338 and return was filed on 27.09.2014 along with audit report in Form 3CB & 3CD dated 28.09.2013. 3. The case of the assessee was reopened based on a search u/s. 132 conducted on 09.10.2014 in the case of P. Gopinath Reddy in which the appellant

SRI. PANATI VIKRAMDEVA REDDY,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68,461 and other income. The assessee offered income declaring taxable income of Rs.60,79,338 and return was filed on 27.09.2014 along with audit report in Form 3CB & 3CD dated 28.09.2013. 3. The case of the assessee was reopened based on a search u/s. 132 conducted on 09.10.2014 in the case of P. Gopinath Reddy in which the appellant

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

68 ITD 0560, she submitted that the penalty proceedings u/s 271B initiated 34 months after the completion of assessment was held to be invalid. He accordingly submitted that since, in the instant case, the penalty proceedings have been initiated after a period of more than four years, therefore, the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld

M/S. WINDSOR GARDENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty u/s 270A has been invoked in the appellant's case as there has been an addition to the returned income. The section 270AA has an in-built immunity provision which permits an appellant to accept the addition by paying taxes and not filing the appeal. However, this immunity has to be sought

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTION) WARD-3,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Sree Rajendrasuri Gurumandir Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), 25 & 25/1, Jain Temple Road, Ward – 3, Vishwweswarapuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aajts 8921 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ar. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056681273 (1)] Dated 30.09.2023. 2. The Sole & Substantiating Ground Raised By The Assessee To Challenge Order Of Nfac Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.54,700/- Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act, For Delay In Filing The Return Of Income. The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income Was 30.09.2015 But The Assessee Filed Its Return On 31.03.2017. Accordingly, Ao Levied Penalty Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act Of Rs.54,700/-. Page 2 Of 9 3. At The Outset Of Hearing, The Learned Counsel Drew Our Attention That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By 328 Days. However, The Registry Has Not Raised Any Defect Memo For Delay In Filing The Appeal. An Application Dated 22.11.2024 Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Assessee Which Is As Under:

68 ITD 0560, she submitted that the penalty proceedings u/s 271B initiated 34 months after the completion of assessment was held to be invalid. He accordingly submitted that since, in the instant case, the penalty proceedings have been initiated after a period of more than four years, therefore, the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 in the hands of the assessee firm by merely relying on the sworn statements of the partner Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim which are not binding on the assessee. The learned AO ought to corroborate the admission contained in the statement, if any, with independent evidence. If AO was not satisfied with the particulars, it would have issued summons

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

68 in the hands of the assessee firm by merely relying on the sworn statements of the partner Mr. Mohammed Ibrahim which are not binding on the assessee. The learned AO ought to corroborate the admission contained in the statement, if any, with independent evidence. If AO was not satisfied with the particulars, it would have issued summons

UTTAMCHAND HASTIMAL JAIN,VIJAYAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1AND 2, TPS, VIJAYAPUR

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavuttamchand Hastimal Jain The Income Tax Officer Prop. Of Sumatinath Traders Ward - 1 & 2 (Tps) Kirana Bazar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Vijayapura 586101 Near All India Raido Pan – Addpj2783P Athani Road, Vijayapura 586104 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061137028(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 19.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-05. 2. Facts Leading To The Filing Of Present Appeal Are, The Assessee Is An Individual Running A Kirana Shop In Vijayapura, Karnataka. For The Impugned Assessment Year He Has Filed His Return Of Income(Roi) Declaring An Income Of Rs 4,72,780/- On 31.10.2014. Thereafter, An Information, Revealing That Assessee Had Deposited An Amount Of Rs. 3,10,13,708/- In Its Bank Account With Shri Gurubasava Urban Credit Souharda Co-Op. Ltd, Surfaced With Department. Accordingly The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 2 Uttamchand Hastimal Jain 148 Of The Vide Notice Dated 31.03.2021. In Response To The 148 Notice The Assessee Filed A Revised Computation Of Income Declaring An Income Of Rs 21,68,535/-. While Concluding The Assessment The Ao Accepted The Revised Computation Without Any Demur. However, The Ao Simultaneously, Initiated Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Alleging That Assessee Has Concealed His Income. Afterwards, The Ao Vide Its Order Dated 26.09.2022, Levied Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

68,535/-. While concluding the assessment the AO accepted the revised computation without any demur. However, the AO simultaneously, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging that assessee has concealed his income. Afterwards, the AO vide its order dated 26.09.2022, levied penalty u/s

AKSHATA VISHWAS TUDAVEKAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

68 filed or for creating the scenario for the competent authority / JAO Akshata Vishwas Tudavekar, Bangalore Page 9 of 11 to consider and grant immunity in terms of Section 270AA of the Act and thus render justice. 7. The ld. D.R. strongly opposed the arguments of the assessee’s counsel. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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

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

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , VIJAYPURA

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

Section 68 of the Income Tax is not applicable for this business sale of sugar transaction as there is no unexplained money involved. 4. The assessing officer has not brought any evidence to show that the amounts received from parties were returned back to them and sale invoices are only accommodation entries. In the absence of any material evidences

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the variousITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains