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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

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

loss form house property; ii) Disallowance of deduction u/s.80C of Rs.1,00,000. iii) Disallowance of cost of improvement to the tune of Rs.1,56,98,159 in computing LTCG. iv) Disallowance of deduction u/s.54B of the Act to the extent of Rs.3,68,14,038. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously

HARSHAVARDHAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all 13 appeals of the assessee are allowed

set out in Explanation 1(A) & (B) it should be discernible from the said order which would by a legal fiction constitute concealment because of deeming provision. g) Even if these conditions do not exist in the assessment order passed, at least, a direction to initiate proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) is a sine qua non for the Assessment

M/S STUMP SCHUELE AND SOMAPPA SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Stumpp Schuele & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Somappa Springs Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Ltu, No.139/2, Hosur Road, Circle - 1, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 095. Pan : Aalcs 7347 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sowmya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boazthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-10, Bangalore, Dated 01.02.2018 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Upholding The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Relevant For Disposal Of This Appeal Are As Under: Page 2 Of 9 2.1 The Assessee, A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Supply Of Stabilizer Bars & All Varieties Of Springs, Automobile Components, Spare Parts, Accessories, Etc., Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 Declaring Loss Of (-) Rs.5,34,42,031/- Under Normal Provisions & ‘Book Profits’ Of Rs.2,88,52,729/- Under Section 115Jb Of The Act. The Case Was Taken Up For Assessment For This Assessment Year & The Assessment Was Concluded Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 13.03.2015, Wherein The Assessee’S Loss Was Determined At Rs.4,55,68,066/- In View Of The Following Additions / Deductions:- (I) Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 35(2Ab) – Rs.14,34,982/- (Ii) Disallowance Of Leave Encashment – Rs.64,38,983/-.

loss was determined at Rs.4,55,68,066/- in view of the following additions / deductions:- (i) Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) – Rs.14,34,982/- (ii) Disallowance of Leave Encashment – Rs.64,38,983/-. 2.2 Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously vide notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, RAICHUR vs. M/S THE RAICHUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD , RAICHUR

In the result, the assessee's Cross Objections for Assessment Year

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

loss to the Revenue, as legitimate taxes payable in accordance with law will be collected. We, therefore, being of the opinion that this is a fit case for condonation of delay; accordingly condone the delay in filing this C.O. before the Tribunal and admit the C.O. for consideration and adjudication. It is ordered accordingly. O R D E R Assessee

NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of provision for leave encashment of Rs.11,08,482/- which was claimed by the assessee by debiting the same to the Profit and Loss Account. It is an admitted fact that the assessee in the note at the end of the computation has stated that the provisions of section

MARIS CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HULIYAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, TUMKUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

loss of possible revenue. Accordingly, the A.O. levied a penalty of Rs.5,53,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the ITA 1672 OF 2019 MARIS CEMENTS PVT. LTD., HULIYAR Page 4 of 12 penalty and hence the assessee has filed the appeal before

M/S INTERGARDEN (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

loss of Rs.1,97,072/-, the assessment was made by the AO, on the income offered by the assessee of Rs.23,02,928/-. Thus, there was no ambiguity or confusion about the concealment of income and particulars of income which were disclosed by the assessee during the search and seizure action u/s

SMT JAYALAKSHMI ,HASSAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesmt. Jayalakshmi, Prop. Vijayalakshmi Granites, No.371, Industrial Area, H.N.Pura Road, Hassan. … Appellant Pan:Abgph 7269 E Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.Srinivasan, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act'].

loss of Rs.2,61,530/- and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In compliance, the learned AR appeared from time to time and produced books of account and bank account details. The Assessing Officer

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience