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

80 Feet Road, Ward – 7 (1) (3), 3325/Bang/2018) Kodihalli, Bangalore – 560 008. Bangalore. PAN: AAACV5595Q Assessee by : Dr. C.P. Ramaswami, Advocate Revenue by : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 24.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2019 O R D E R Per Bench: Both these appeals are filed by the revenue and both the C.Os. are filed

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

80 Feet Road, Ward – 7 (1) (3), 3325/Bang/2018) Kodihalli, Bangalore – 560 008. Bangalore. PAN: AAACV5595Q Assessee by : Dr. C.P. Ramaswami, Advocate Revenue by : Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 24.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2019 O R D E R Per Bench: Both these appeals are filed by the revenue and both the C.Os. are filed

M/S DEASI & COMPANY,HUBLI vs. DCIT, HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Year 2006-07 is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2006-07 M/S. Desai & Company, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Pb Road, Income-Tax, Vidyanagar, Circle 1(1), Hubli. Navanagar, Pan : Aaafd 9759 P Hubli . Appellant Respondent

80,000/- added back towards bad debts written off and Rs.60,20,000/- added back towards claim of discount to cover deficiencies as stated in letter dated 30.12.2008. The case was taken up for scrutiny for this Assessment Year and the assessment was concluded under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2008 wherein the assessee’s income

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

80,91,500/- Basavaraj Laxmanagouda Biradar, Vijayapura Page 6 of 10 considered as concealment within the meaning of section 271(1)(c). Hence, this is a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The minimum penalty (100%) leviable U/s

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

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 (i.e., AY 2009-10 to 2014-15) similar addition was made

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

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 (i.e., AY 2009-10 to 2014-15) similar addition was made

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

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 (i.e., AY 2009-10 to 2014-15) similar addition was made

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

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 (i.e., AY 2009-10 to 2014-15) similar addition was made

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

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 (i.e., AY 2009-10 to 2014-15) similar addition was made

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

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 (i.e., AY 2009-10 to 2014-15) similar addition was made

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

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 (i.e., AY 2009-10 to 2014-15) similar addition was made

M/S. SYNDICATE BANK STAFF CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

271 of the Act. Even during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant has not filed any valid, reasonable and cogent reason for not filing his return of income, even though the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act explicitly required him to file his Return of Income within the stipulated time. The penalty levied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

80 pages containing various documents filed/produced before the Authorities below. 7. Before us, the ld. CIT-D.R. Ms. Neera Malhotra fervently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC wrongly interpreted sub section (9) of section 270A of the Act in holding that 270A(9) of the Act suggests a willful negligence or a misreporting of income which was made

SRI P A USMAN ,SULLIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result, the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Ita Nos.888 & 889(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Years : 2014-15) Shri P.A.Usman, D No.2-106-2, Chennavara House, Peruvaje Post, Bellare, Sullia-574 212 Pan No. Aappu4406R Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. R.Premi, Jcit

section 44AB of the IT Act and confirmed the penalty levied u/s 271B of the IT Act, and dismissed assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty without considering the submissions and the explanations filed in the course

HUBLI SARAKU SAGANIKEDRARA SAHAKARI PATTINA SANGHA NIYAMITA,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for both these years

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 80 P (2) (a) (i) as assessee failed to produce the details but allowed the cost of funds. iv. The learned assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271

HUBLI SARAKU SAGANIKEDARARA SAHAKARI PATTINA SANGHA NIYAMITA,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for both these years

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 80 P (2) (a) (i) as assessee failed to produce the details but allowed the cost of funds. iv. The learned assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271