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

147 in which it was held that since no format of books of accounts were prescribed under the Rules for Civil Contracts, Penalty u/s 271A is not justified. He submitted that when no penalty u/s 271A is leviable, Penalty u/s 271B also cannot be levied for non-audit as prescribed u/s 44AB. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders

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

D E R These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the respective orders of the CIT(Appeals) arising from the reassessment order for the AYs 2006-07 and 2008-09 and consequential penalty u/s. 271A & 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

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

D E R These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the respective orders of the CIT(Appeals) arising from the reassessment order for the AYs 2006-07 and 2008-09 and consequential penalty u/s. 271A & 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