THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S LTI MINDTREE LTD

Bench: JAYANT BANERJI,S.G.PANDIT

disallowed and added back to total income. Penalty proceedings were also directed to be initiated. - 6 - ITA No. 147 of 2024 7. The assessee

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

penalty in respect of such illegal mining because the disallowance has been made by the AO to the extent of 40% of the total

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

penalty in respect of such illegal mining because the disallowance has been made by the assessing officer. Whereas representative of the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE SANDUR MANGANESE and IRON ORES LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

penalty for the first time in the appellate proceedings. 2. The assessee filed returns on 29.11.1996 claiming loss of Rs.26,03,43,978/-. Assessment was completed on 19.09.1997 showing loss of Rs.25,15,67,622/-. The said loss was reduced on account of certain disallowances

M/S SAFINA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowed the claim made by the assessee. Accordingly, assessments were concluded. The Assessing Officer also separately initiated penalty proceedings under

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. M/S MINITECHS

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

penalty with regard to computation of long term capital gain by disallowing part of cost of acquisition, in our view

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

disallowances made by the Appellate Authority were on different grounds. 11. Acting on the said finding recorded by the Appellate Authority, the Assessing Authority in the penalty

SRI B GAJENDRA KUMAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

disallowances as made by the assessing officer, in order to buy peace with the department and to avoid protracted litigation. Accordingly, he paid tax and interest. Subsequently, notices under Section 274 r/w. Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act were issued to the assessee to show cause as to why penalty

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 (1)

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is settled principle that an addition or / disallowance resulting in increase

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is settled principle that an addition or / disallowance resulting in increase

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.REMA CONSTRUCTIONS,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

disallowance of the said items by the Assessing Officer was not proper. The Assessing Officer should have initiated penalty proceedings

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed. Hence an amount of Rs.31,75,95,815/- is brought to tax. Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 35/137 5 Penalty

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowed. Hence an amount of Rs.31,75,95,815/- is brought to tax. Date of Judgment 25-09-2018 I.T.A.No.155/2016 and connected matters The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. M/s. Chamundi Winery and Distillery 35/137 5 Penalty

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.RYATARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITHA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI,S.SUJATHA

disallowed a sum of Rs.30,86,504/- and Rs.4,86,946/- being payment made to harvesters/transporters and vehicle hire charges and legal fees. The said order having reached finality, the Assessing Authority initiated penalty

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

disallowed the income of the claim made inasmuch as following items are concerned:- i) Interest income ii) Profit on sale of stores iii) Miscellaneous receipts from trading iv) Rental income v) Commission for collection of electric duty vi) Penalty

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

disallowed as withdrawn by the assessee. 9. It would be, however, necessary to see what did the assessee in the letter dated 8th March, 2002, addressed to the AO, had stated. By this letter, at the outset, the assessee withdrew their claim of 100% depreciation and requested not to levy penalty

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI H NAGARAJA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

disallowed the expenses claimed by the assessee under the heads, ‘labour charges’, ‘expenses of commission’ and ‘work in progress’, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to enhance the total income in terms of the findings recorded by him. The 3 Assessing Officer had been further directed by the Commissioner to initiate penalty

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

disallowed the claim to the extent of Rs.56,45,810/- being expenditure incurred as fee for minor deviation from the initially sanctioned plan and to 4 bring the actually constructed structure in conformity with the modified plan as per building bye laws of the assessee on the ground that such payment amounted to penalty