MR. P. NARASIMHA RAO,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

section 68 of the Act cannot be applied in this case as the assessee is not maintaining the books of accounts. Further, the P&L account and balance sheet filed by the assessee before the assessing authority cannot be considered as a books of accounts, as contemplated u/s 68 of the Act. Thus, the view of ours fortified

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

68 of the Act was unjustifiable much less the penalty confirmed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on alleged concealment was opposed to law and liable to be deleted. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that even if the explanation furnished was not acceptable, still there could be no conclusion as to the concealment

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

274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), before imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) does not spell out the exact charge against the assessee i.e., whether the assessee is guilty in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income. This ground was not specifically urged by the assessee before

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

274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), before imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) does not spell out the exact charge against the assessee i.e., whether the assessee is guilty in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income. This ground was not specifically urged by the assessee before

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

274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), before imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) does not spell out the exact charge against the assessee i.e., whether the assessee is guilty in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income. This ground was not specifically urged by the assessee before

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

68 of the Act of Rs.9,00,450 and Rs.49,140. 2.2 Before the disposal of the assessee's appeals against the orders of assessment before the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer who had initiated penalty proceedings in the order of assessment by issue of notice under Section 274

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section

SMT. RATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

274 ITR 405 (All) distinguished.” ………………………………………………………………………………………. ITA Nos.468 to 473/Bang/2023 Smt. Rathnamma, Bangalore Page 8 of 10 12.3.1 Thus, the provision u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is well settled that in order to make an addition under this section

KYALASANAHALLI NARAYANAPPA SUBRAMANI,CNO KOTHANUR POST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1) BENGALURU , KORAMANGALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

sections": ["143(3)", "68", "246A", "234A", "234B", "234C", "156", "271", "274"], "issues": "Whether the dismissal of the appeal by CIT(A) on the ground

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

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

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit is clearly not based on any incriminating material seized from the assessee. 3.4.3 In this context, the jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions in ITA No.528 to 531/2014 has held as under :- “ 4.2.2 In this regard, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court

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) of the Act was initiated simultaneously vide notice under section 274