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)

1)(c), assessee as required u/s 274 read with section 271( penalty levied is not sustainable. This view is further supported penalty levied is not sustainable. This view is further supported penalty levied is not sustainable. This view is further supported in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerala Meadows 73 taxmann.com CIT vs. SSA's Emerala Meadows

M/S ROAD LINKS INDIA PVT, LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2002-03 is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition of Rs.28,58,070, in respect of unexplained cash credits under Section 68

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the Assessee is in the business of Real Estate, Leasing quarries, and he has about 1200 acres of land in his possession in and around Devanahalli and also in Andra Pradesh. His modus operandi is that

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the Assessee is in the business of Real Estate, Leasing quarries, and he has about 1200 acres of land in his possession in and around Devanahalli and also in Andra Pradesh. His modus operandi is that

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that the Assessee is in the business of Real Estate, Leasing quarries, and he has about 1200 acres of land in his possession in and around Devanahalli and also in Andra Pradesh. His modus operandi is that

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

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(1)(c

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra) are general in nature and since they require

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra) are general in nature and since they require

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra) are general in nature and since they require

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra) are general in nature and since they require

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

C) NO.7351 OF 2021, against the judgement of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, therefore, the issue should be decided in favour of the revenue. 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We notice that the from the judgments quoted by the assessee (supra) in its own case, the issue has been decided

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

C) NO.7351 OF 2021, against the judgement of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, therefore, the issue should be decided in favour of the revenue. 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We notice that the from the judgments quoted by the assessee (supra) in its own case, the issue has been decided

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

C) NO.7351 OF 2021, against the judgement of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, therefore, the issue should be decided in favour of the revenue. 18. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We notice that the from the judgments quoted by the assessee (supra) in its own case, the issue has been decided

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

Section\n153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which\ncould be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act.\n16. We are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\n17. Accordingly, the appeal is closed.\n6.5 The above view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case