SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE--2(1),, MYSORE

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO. The order of AO was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. In the appeal or AY 2007-08 in ground No.7, and for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ground No.9, the Assessee has raised

R.AJITH ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO. The order of AO was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. In the appeal or AY 2007-08 in ground No.7, and for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ground No.9, the Assessee has raised

K.RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO. The order of AO was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. In the appeal or AY 2007-08 in ground No.7, and for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ground No.9, the Assessee has raised

SHRI. AJITH R,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO. The order of AO was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. In the appeal or AY 2007-08 in ground No.7, and for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ground No.9, the Assessee has raised

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO. The order of AO was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. In the appeal or AY 2007-08 in ground No.7, and for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ground No.9, the Assessee has raised

SHRI. AJITH R,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO. The order of AO was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. In the appeal or AY 2007-08 in ground No.7, and for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ground No.9, the Assessee has raised

K RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO. The order of AO was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. In the appeal or AY 2007-08 in ground No.7, and for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ground No.9, the Assessee has raised

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO. The order of AO was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. In the appeal or AY 2007-08 in ground No.7, and for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ground No.9, the Assessee has raised

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

3. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee, urging ground No.4 in the appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13, contended that the notices dated 29.02.2016 issued by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings were not in accordance with law and on this ground alone the order imposing penalty should be quashed. The learned Counsel

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

3. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee, urging ground No.4 in the appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13, contended that the notices dated 29.02.2016 issued by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings were not in accordance with law and on this ground alone the order imposing penalty should be quashed. The learned Counsel

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

3. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee, urging ground No.4 in the appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13, contended that the notices dated 29.02.2016 issued by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings were not in accordance with law and on this ground alone the order imposing penalty should be quashed. The learned Counsel

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

3. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee, urging ground No.4 in the appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13, contended that the notices dated 29.02.2016 issued by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings were not in accordance with law and on this ground alone the order imposing penalty should be quashed. The learned Counsel

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

3. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee, urging ground No.4 in the appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13, contended that the notices dated 29.02.2016 issued by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings were not in accordance with law and on this ground alone the order imposing penalty should be quashed. The learned Counsel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

92 (P&H) .CIT Vs Ample Properties Ltd [2012] 20 taxmann.com 422 (Mad) 7.15. The AO in his penalty order has held that assessee has not attempted to establish his bonafides nor submitted any explanation before the AO during the penalty proceedings and thus has failed to discharge the onus laid down upon him in terms of explanation

M/S SAMANTHU BUSINESS FORMS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed and the assessee’s Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazsp No.201/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Samanthu Business Forms Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 37/3, Basavanapura Main Road, Income-Tax, Bhattarahalli, Beedarahalli, Central Circle 2(2), Bangalore – 560 049. Bangalore. Pan : Aabcs 9498 Q Appellant Respondent

3 of 13 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding order levying 4. penalty failing to notice that it is bad in law as it is based on notice dated 24.06.2015 which is vague, issued without application of mind and without specifying the exact conduct contumacious; The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law in not appreciating that

M/S GOGGA GURUSHANTHIAH & BROS.,HOSPET vs. ACIT, BELLARY

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2007-08 M/S. Gogga Gurushantiah Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of & Brothers, Income-Tax, P. No. 4, Mine Owners & Circle – I, Mineral Grinders Nehru Co-Op Bellary. Colony, Hospet. Pan : Aacfg 6895 M Appellant Respondent

U/s 271(1)( c). 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that for Penalty is for statutory offence and hence the officer has not discretion in the matter of imposition of penalty. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have distinguished the submission submitted during the course of hearing of appeal

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

3 of 14 Page 4 of 14 4. Ground No.2 : In this ground (supra) raised before the Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to follow the binding decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Kar); and since the notice issued under section

M/S RAJESH ENTERPRISES ,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(3), 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 : 2008-09 M/S. Rajesh Enterprises, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Narmada Building, Ward - 3(3), Mangalwar Peth, Hubli . Hubli – 580 020. Pan : Aadfr 4941 C Appellant Respondent

3 of 15 Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Hubli, dated 25.10.2018, 3.1 partly upholding the AO’s action in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2008-09, the assessee has filed this appeal wherein it has raised the following grounds: Page 4 of 15 3.2.1 The assessee has also filed

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

penalty initiation. These instructions do not\nshow non-application of mind; rather, they are an additional layer of\nverification meant to ensure correctness and completeness of the\nassessment. The learned DR emphasised that such directions are routine\nand reflect due diligence and not mechanical approval.\n\n18.4 The learned DR also clarified that the issuance of approval letters\nand assessment