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

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 271(1)(c) of the Act, was the subject matter of interpretation by this Court in the case

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Act, was the subject matter of interpretation by this Court in the case

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Act, was the subject matter of interpretation by this Court in the case

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Act, was the subject matter of interpretation by this Court in the case

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Act, was the subject matter of interpretation by this Court in the case

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Act, was the subject matter of interpretation by this Court in the case

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Act, was the subject matter of interpretation by this Court in the case

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Act, was the subject matter of interpretation by this Court in the case

M/S AMAN GOLD PLAZA,PUTTUR vs. ITO, PUTTUR

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

271B B for the AY 2006-07. 2. First the appeals in ITA Nos. 4 & 8/Bang/2015 arising against the reassessment order are taken up. The assessee has raised various grounds in these appeals, however, at the time of hearing, the assessee has also filed an additional ground, which reads as under:- ITA Nos.4 to 6 & 8/Bang/2015 Page

M/S AMAN GOLD PLAZA,PUTTUR vs. ITO, PUTTUR

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

271B B for the AY 2006-07. 2. First the appeals in ITA Nos. 4 & 8/Bang/2015 arising against the reassessment order are taken up. The assessee has raised various grounds in these appeals, however, at the time of hearing, the assessee has also filed an additional ground, which reads as under:- ITA Nos.4 to 6 & 8/Bang/2015 Page

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

271B in all these six years. 5. Now, we take up and decide Six Appeals in respect of Penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271 (1) (c) of I T Act, 1961. In these appeals, although several grounds are raised on technical aspects as well as on merit but in course of hearing, learned AR of the assessee mainly argued