MR. SHIVAKUMAR MAHADEVAIAH ,MYSORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), MYSORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

Section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A), Mysore. However, the case was dismissed CIT(A), Mysore. However

MAHAVEER SARASWATHI,ARSIKERE vs. ITO, HASSAN

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

271(1)(c) of the Act is opposed to law as there being no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars to justify such penalty. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the amount received from the parties were identifiable and confirmations were also produced and accordingly confirming the additions under Section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3)(1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHANARAYANA, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

68,76,382/- for Assessment Year 2006-07 and Rs.4,69,13,969/- for Assessment Year 2007-08 should be taken as a return filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act. It is not in dispute that the income so declared by the assessee was accepted by the AO and assessment was completed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3) (1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHNARAYANA, DEVENAHALLI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

68,76,382/- for Assessment Year 2006-07 and Rs.4,69,13,969/- for Assessment Year 2007-08 should be taken as a return filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act. It is not in dispute that the income so declared by the assessee was accepted by the AO and assessment was completed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 6 (3)(1), BENGALURU vs. SRI C. ASWATHANARAYANA , DEVENAHALLI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed while the cross objections are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

68,76,382/- for Assessment Year 2006-07 and Rs.4,69,13,969/- for Assessment Year 2007-08 should be taken as a return filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act. It is not in dispute that the income so declared by the assessee was accepted by the AO and assessment was completed

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

68,14,038. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously on all the above

M/S DAVALAGIRI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

68 and added• the same in the income of the Assessee. The AO also levied penalty under section 271

BASAVARAJ LAXMANAGOUDA BIRADAR,VIJAYAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIJAYAPURA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

section 143(3) of the Act passed by the learned AO who has made additions only on the basis of assumptions, surmise and conjectures.” Basavaraj Laxmanagouda Biradar, Vijayapura Page 7 of 10 8.1 The crux of above grounds is that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. The facts of the issue are that

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/-.

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

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

section 148 by filing return of income on 26/04/2019. Thereafter statutory notice for conducting assessment was issued to the assessee on 04/06/2019 and 05/07/2019 calling for various details. It is thereafter that the assessee sought for the reasons recorded as per para 6.2 of the assessment order. The Ld.AO issued the reasons recorded vide Page

KOTARKI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ,BIDAR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA RANGE , GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2010-11

271(1)(c) of the Act has not been complied with under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO has not recorded satisfaction in the order of assessment, either for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and consequently the order passed is bad in law, on the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed and cross objection filed by assessee stands dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15

68,84,765/- Travelling and conveyance expenses Rs. 26,37,207/- Legal and professional expenses Rs. 9,03,270/- Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, amounting to Rs.79,29,427/- was also made under Rule8D(2)(ii) and sum of Rs.64,52,787/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was also made. Ld.AO initiated penalty proceedings under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

68 SOT 184 (Bangalore – Trib); and ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 21 of 45 (ii) DCIT Vs. S. R. M. Agro Foods (2016) 161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

68 SOT 184 (Bangalore – Trib); and ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 21 of 45 (ii) DCIT Vs. S. R. M. Agro Foods (2016) 161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

68 SOT 184 (Bangalore – Trib); and ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 21 of 45 (ii) DCIT Vs. S. R. M. Agro Foods (2016) 161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

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

68 SOT 184 (Bangalore – Trib); and ITA Nos. 1447 and 1448/Bang/2017 ITA Nos. 1519 and 1520/Bang/2017 Page 21 of 45 (ii) DCIT Vs. S. R. M. Agro Foods (2016) 161 ITD 786 (Mumbai – Trib). 10.3.2 In the course of hearings before us, the amendments to Section 9 the Act, particularly the Explanations inserted in the Section, came

SRI SURESH CHIKKAJALA RAMAKRISHNAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,61,132/- levied u/s. 271[1][c] of the Act in respect of the additions made in course of the assessment proceedings that were accepted by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that there was no concealment of income or furnishing

GLEN WILLIAMS,BANGALORE vs. ASST. CIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2009-10

271(1)(c) of the Act. There is no doubt, there is a reference in this letter about factum of dismissal of the assessee’s appeal by the CIT(A) by order dated 12.3.2013. It is the plea of assessee that since this letter was with reference to penalty proceedings, he did not notice the contents of this letter