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

90,410/-. Pursuant to search conducted in the case on hand on 01.05.2013, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.10.2013. In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.6,01,630/-; which included an amount of Rs.3,11,220/- on account of undisclosed income admittedly earned

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

90,410/-. Pursuant to search conducted in the case on hand on 01.05.2013, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.10.2013. In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.6,01,630/-; which included an amount of Rs.3,11,220/- on account of undisclosed income admittedly earned

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

90,410/-. Pursuant to search conducted in the case on hand on 01.05.2013, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.10.2013. In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.6,01,630/-; which included an amount of Rs.3,11,220/- on account of undisclosed income admittedly earned

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

90,410/-. Pursuant to search conducted in the case on hand on 01.05.2013, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.10.2013. In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.6,01,630/-; which included an amount of Rs.3,11,220/- on account of undisclosed income admittedly earned

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue. 8. Further, regarding the levy of penalty for claim of short term capital loss by invoking the provisions of section 94(7) of the Act, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee company had disclosed these transactions and from the details furnished by the assessee, the AO has come

M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2009-10 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Unit 1, Plot No.78, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Bangalore-560 100. Circle 7(1)(1), Pan : Aaact 4660 J Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

90,62,429/-. 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 09.04.2013 wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.17,10,43,180/- and wherein the AO simultaneously initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by issue

M. VEERABHADRAIAH,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for A

90,000 admitted respectively by the assessee in the course of survey under Section 133A of the Act have been disclosed by the assessee in the returns of income filed for these years. Thus, the assessments were completed by accepting the income declared by the assessee in the returns of income for Assessment Year 2007-08 and which included

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

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 as per the details set out in the earlier paragraph. The AO has made the following observations with reference

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

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 as per the details set out in the earlier paragraph. The AO has made the following observations with reference

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

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 as per the details set out in the earlier paragraph. The AO has made the following observations with reference

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

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 as per the details set out in the earlier paragraph. The AO has made the following observations with reference

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

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 as per the details set out in the earlier paragraph. The AO has made the following observations with reference

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

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 as per the details set out in the earlier paragraph. The AO has made the following observations with reference

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

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 as per the details set out in the earlier paragraph. The AO has made the following observations with reference

SRI. H. LAKSHMINARAYANA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

90,890 14,17,770 6. In respect of the additions made in the assessment proceedings for all the aforesaid assessment years, the AO imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the assessee, which was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred appeals before the Tribunal

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (“the Joint CIT”).Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. A perusal of the order dated March

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

271(1)(c) and 271E of the Act. Admittedly, under section 271E(2) of the Act, any penalty under section 271E(1)can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (“the Joint CIT”).Consequently, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. 3. A perusal of the order dated March

VASANTHA NAGARAJ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(7), BANGALORE

In the result, the quantum appeal is partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao(Smc)

section 271(1)c ) of the Act being not applicable, the penalty levied s to be cancelled. 3 ITA No.1180 & 1181(B)/14 6. In any case and without prejudice the learned AO has erred in levying penalty at the minimum rate (300%) and the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. The penalty as levied/sustained being erroneous