SHRI S KRISHNA PRASAD ,BALLARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 271AAB of the Act should not be passed. We have noticed earlier that the provisions of sec.271AAB refers to “undisclosed income” and penalty is also levied on “undisclosed income”. Hence reference to the charges related to sec. 271

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. ITA Nos.352 - 357/Bang/2021 Page 11 of 30 4.4 The assessee has not offered any cogent explanation as to why the income representing the undisclosed hand loans was not declared in the original return of income filed u/s

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

undisclosed income as stipulated in the explanation to the said section. Therefore, we do not agree with the contention of the Id. D/R that the levy of penalty under section 271 AAB is mandatory simply because the AO has to first issue a show cause notice to the assessee and then has to make a decision for levy of penalty

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

penalty of Rs. 358,987/- was imposed u/s 271 (1) (c) of I T Act to the extent of 100% of tax sought to be evaded as per the AO. In view of these facts, we find force in this submission that there was no undisclosed income

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

undisclosed income from business as per the findings during search and as declared u/s. 132(4). Addition: Rs.2,00,00,000/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

undisclosed income from business as per the findings during search and as declared u/s. 132(4). Addition: Rs.2,00,00,000/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

undisclosed income from business as per the findings during search and as declared u/s. 132(4). Addition: Rs.2,00,00,000/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

undisclosed income from business as per the findings during search and as declared u/s. 132(4). Addition: Rs.2,00,00,000/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

undisclosed income from business as per the findings during search and as declared u/s. 132(4). Addition: Rs.2,00,00,000/- Penalty proceedings u/s 271

SRI SURESH RAO SATHE.S,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Suresh Rao Sathe S, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of No.16, 7Th Main, Income Tax, Indiranagar 2Nd Stage, Circle – 1(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 038. Bengaluru – 560 095. Pan : Abips 1070 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajeev C. Nulvi, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019

undisclosed income. 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 in respect of the aforesaid addition. After considering the assessee’s replies in the matter, the AO proceeded to levy penalty of Rs.3,56,740/- under section 271

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. xi. The Assessee have right reserve to Amend modify delete and make any additional grounds of appeal. 2.3 During the appellate proceedings the assessee raised additional grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji as under: 1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice u/s.1

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. xi. The Assessee have right reserve to Amend modify delete and make any additional grounds of appeal. 2.3 During the appellate proceedings the assessee raised additional grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji as under: 1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice u/s.1

SRI RATHAN BABULAL LATH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated for concealment of income.) 2.1 Against this assessee carried this appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by observing as follows:- “15. Perusal of assessment order shows that appellant during AY 2009-10 had given an amount of Rs. 60 crore

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

income by the\nassessee and hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is\ninitiated separately.\n14.5 With regard to Undisclosed

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

undisclosed income came to light only on account of the search. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealing

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

undisclosed income came to light only on account of the search. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealing

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

undisclosed income came to light only on account of the search. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealing

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

undisclosed income came to light only on account of the search. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated for concealing