SIMPLEX TMC PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

73 taxmann.com 241 (Karn.) has taken a similar view. 5.7 Further, in the case of PCIT Vs. Industrial Safety Products (P) Ltd. (2023) 154 taxmann.com 433 (Calcutta), the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held as under: “The show cause notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 did not furnish any particulars and all the relevant columns have

MR. SHIVAKUMAR MAHADEVAIAH ,MYSORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), MYSORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

u/s 274 read with section 271( penalty levied is not sustainable. This view is further supported penalty levied is not sustainable. This view is further supported penalty levied is not sustainable. This view is further supported in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerala Meadows 73

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VERDE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 271 r.w.s 274, without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated against concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is invalid and thereby setting aside the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c)? 3. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that in the present case, the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars in respect

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRIAD RESORTS AND HOTELS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 271 r.w.s 274, without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated against concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is invalid and thereby setting aside the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c)? 3. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that in the present case, the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars in respect

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

73,000/-. Pursuant to search action under section 132 of the Act conducted at the assessee’s premises on 01.05.2013 notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.10.2013 in response to which the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.11,65,180/-; which included an amount of Rs.9,91,675/- on account

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

73,000/-. Pursuant to search action under section 132 of the Act conducted at the assessee’s premises on 01.05.2013 notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.10.2013 in response to which the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.11,65,180/-; which included an amount of Rs.9,91,675/- on account

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

73,000/-. Pursuant to search action under section 132 of the Act conducted at the assessee’s premises on 01.05.2013 notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.10.2013 in response to which the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.11,65,180/-; which included an amount of Rs.9,91,675/- on account

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

73,000/-. Pursuant to search action under section 132 of the Act conducted at the assessee’s premises on 01.05.2013 notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.10.2013 in response to which the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.11,65,180/-; which included an amount of Rs.9,91,675/- on account

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

73,000/-. Pursuant to search action under section 132 of the Act conducted at the assessee’s premises on 01.05.2013 notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 18.10.2013 in response to which the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.11,65,180/-; which included an amount of Rs.9,91,675/- on account

SHRI V BABUKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2006-07 Shri. V. Babukumar, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.3667, 8Th Cross, Income Tax, 13Th E Main, Indiranagar, Circle – 7(2), Bangalore – 560 038. Bengaluru. Pan : Aebpb 3981 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2019

73,874/-. The case was taken up for Page 2 of 7 scrutiny and the assessment was concluded under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 29.12.2008, wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.60,15,011 and penalty proceedings were simultaneously initiated by issue of notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated

RAHIL MAHESHKUMAR NIZAMUDDIN,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2), BLR, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15 by levying a penalty of Rs. 96,41,529/- being the amount of penalty levied by concluding that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed his income. Rahil Maheshkumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore Page 5 of 24 2.7 At the outset, the ld. A.R. submitted that

JICE ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

271 D of the I.T. Act 1961. Accordingly, the Addl.CIT invoked the provisions of section 271D and levied penalty at Rs.15,64,50,000 for accepting loan in cash in violation of provisions of section 269SS as per section 271D of the Act. 19. The main contention of the ld. AR is that the transaction is genuine

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

73,873 Upto 18-12-2014 74,80,090 Total 9,81,51,183 4.2 The assessee has offered the undisclosed income of Rs, 90,03,946/- to tax in the return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s. 153C.” 3. In the orders of assessment for all the assessment years

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

73,873 Upto 18-12-2014 74,80,090 Total 9,81,51,183 4.2 The assessee has offered the undisclosed income of Rs, 90,03,946/- to tax in the return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s. 153C.” 3. In the orders of assessment for all the assessment years

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

73,873 Upto 18-12-2014 74,80,090 Total 9,81,51,183 4.2 The assessee has offered the undisclosed income of Rs, 90,03,946/- to tax in the return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s. 153C.” 3. In the orders of assessment for all the assessment years

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

73,873 Upto 18-12-2014 74,80,090 Total 9,81,51,183 4.2 The assessee has offered the undisclosed income of Rs, 90,03,946/- to tax in the return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s. 153C.” 3. In the orders of assessment for all the assessment years

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

73,873 Upto 18-12-2014 74,80,090 Total 9,81,51,183 4.2 The assessee has offered the undisclosed income of Rs, 90,03,946/- to tax in the return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s. 153C.” 3. In the orders of assessment for all the assessment years

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

73,873 Upto 18-12-2014 74,80,090 Total 9,81,51,183 4.2 The assessee has offered the undisclosed income of Rs, 90,03,946/- to tax in the return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s. 153C.” 3. In the orders of assessment for all the assessment years

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

73,873 Upto 18-12-2014 74,80,090 Total 9,81,51,183 4.2 The assessee has offered the undisclosed income of Rs, 90,03,946/- to tax in the return of income filed by him in response to notice u/s. 153C.” 3. In the orders of assessment for all the assessment years