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

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

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, 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 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

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

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

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

income by the assessee and hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. RAMCHANDRA NAVEEN, BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the learned\nCIT(A)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately.\n19. On the basis of above observation of the assessee, AO made addition\nunder section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure for the Assessment\nYears as under\n Assessment Year\nAmount\n2016-17\n19,65,000/-\n2017-18\n16,04,500/-\n20. During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee had raised

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of trading in rice and rice products, wheat and wheat products. The assessee filed its ROI u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring an income of Rs. 28,35,100/- only. A search action u/s

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of trading in rice and rice products, wheat and wheat products. The assessee filed its ROI u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring an income of Rs. 28,35,100/- only. A search action u/s

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of trading in rice and rice products, wheat and wheat products. The assessee filed its ROI u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring an income of Rs. 28,35,100/- only. A search action u/s

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of trading in rice and rice products, wheat and wheat products. The assessee filed its ROI u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring an income of Rs. 28,35,100/- only. A search action u/s

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of trading in rice and rice products, wheat and wheat products. The assessee filed its ROI u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring an income of Rs. 28,35,100/- only. A search action u/s

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of trading in rice and rice products, wheat and wheat products. The assessee filed its ROI u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring an income of Rs. 28,35,100/- only. A search action u/s

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

income by the assessee and hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

income by the assessee and hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed