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

7. As such, there was no sustenance of addition on account of claim of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. Being so, there is no question of levying penalty u/s. 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

BHADRAVATHI RAMALINGASETTY MANJUNATH SETTY,BHADRAVATHI vs. ITO WARD-1 TPS , SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

94,11,286/-) as per the provisions of section 271B of the Act for failure to furnish the audit report as required u/s 44AB of the Act within due date and accordingly levied penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19. 4. Aggrieved by the penalty order of the AO passed u/s

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

7,34,47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

7,34,47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

7,34,47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

7,34,47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order

SRI. CHINNAYELLAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR, ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

7. The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that as there is a clear violation of section 271B of the Act to furnish the audit report as required u/s 44AB of the Act, the penalty levied may be sustained. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

7,34,47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded Actual delay in days 28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order

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

94,65,600/- was received by way of cheque. Further, he stated that out of this sale consideration received in cash, Rs. 4 Crore was kept in the locker held in Karur Vysya Bank, Koramangala Branch and the remaining cash was utilised for various expenses. The same has been reiterated and confirmed by Shri Kapil N R Shah

SRI. MOORSAVIRAPPA . C. BATLI,HUBLI vs. ITO, HUBLI

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

94,250/- Total : Rs.2,67,186/- The Assessing Officer noted that there was no closing balance as on 31.3.2004 whereas the assessee has shown opening balances amounting to Rs.2,67,186. When the assessee was asked to explain the discrepancy and the differences of the closing balance as on the last date of earlier year and opening balance of this

SHRI V RAJESH KUMAR ,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri. V. Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sha Phoolchand Vijayraj, Ward – 1, Head Post Office Road, Chitradurga. Chitradurga. Pan : Abopr 2336 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep C, Ca Revenue By : Shri. L. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2019

94,000/- as unexplained cash credits and Rs.3,678/- as income from share trading. 2.2 Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously vide notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date i.e., 31.12.2013 in respect of the aforesaid addition. After considering the assessee’s replies in the matter

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

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

94,883 1,06,990 6,71,860 Rs.) Revised (belated return 02/07/10 02/07/10 02/07/10 02/07/10 02/07/10 filed) Additional income 13,66,704 3,25,392 15,42,099 4,15,766 5,62,361 declared (in Rs.) Date of Asst. Order 21/07/10 21/07/10 21/07/10 21/07/10 21/07/10 Total 18,06,180 7

KOTARKI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,BIDAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA RANGE , GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11

94,901/- 6 Disallowance of excess deductions claimed 54,06,759/- under the head departmental deduction U/s 43B Page 4 of 7 7 Disallowance of Deduction claimed under 2,71,454/- the head CBF 8 Disallowance of excess claim of 37,487/- depreciation 9 Disallowance of depreciation claimed in respect 2,19,231/- of Guest House 10 Disallowance of expenditure

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SRI. ANAND,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb