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

271(1) (c) of the Act is legally sustainable in the light of the fact, which surfaced in the survey under Section 133-A of Act, that claim of 100% depreciation made by the respondent-assessee was not only false but was made in respect of non-existent goods, and that penalty is liable to be levied not only

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

271(1)(c) of the Act, it is settled principle that an addition or / disallowance resulting in increase to the income of the assessee, raises a presumption of concealment of income. It is a rebuttable presumption, which the assessee can rebut by furnishing material evidence to establish its claim. Explanation -1 to section

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, it is settled principle that an addition or / disallowance resulting in increase to the income of the assessee, raises a presumption of concealment of income. It is a rebuttable presumption, which the assessee can rebut by furnishing material evidence to establish its claim. Explanation -1 to section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MWP LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 271(1)(B), which reads as under: “271(1)(B) Where any amount is added or disallowed in computing

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

disallowances. 55. However, keeping in view the contention made by the learned Standing Counsel Shri Y.V. Raviraj for the appellant / Revenue and so also the learned counsel Shri Mayank Jain for the respondent / Assessee, at the cost of repetition, it is relevant to state that the counsel for the respondent / Assessee had relied the judgment of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Disallowance is not maintainable on law and facts and evidence and requires to be deleted. The grounds of appeal, the addition of entire sale consideration and taxing the same amounts to levy of turnover tax for which the assessing officer has no jurisdiction. It is also learnt that appellant has been accounting the receipts on this account regularly

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

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 4A thereto. Hence he directed penalty proceedings u/S 271(1)(c) be initiated. 4. After initiating an independent proceedings for levy of penalty by an order dated 22.12.1999 he imposed a minimum and maximum penalty on the concealed income of Rs.49,96,267/- at Rs.22,98,284/- and Rs.68,94,852/- respectively and a penalty of Rs.22

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 under Section – 271

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 proceedings under Section 271

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 proceedings in respect of aforesaid two claims and passed an order under Section 271

RNS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

In the result, writ petitions are allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy Writ Petition Nos.46275-46289 Of 2016 (T-It)

271(1)(c) of the Act for all the six years as per its order dated 27th May 2016. On 7 the application filed by the petitioner under Section 245D(6D) of the Act the respondent No.1 has passed an order on 11th August 2016 rejecting the application on untenable grounds. 8. Respondent No.1 did not apply for certified copy

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowance was made owing to mismatch between two submissions. The accountant had made a mistake by submitting a provisional ledger extract at one point of time which resulted into certain mismatches in the amounts. The mismatch in the submissions would not result into total expenditure to be bogus. The labour component is major expenditure of the Assessee

M/S GRANITE MART LIMITED vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER

In the result the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

disallowed the claim for deduction under Section 10B of the Act in respect of the sales made through third parties i.e., export houses and inter unit transfers. The Assessing Officer determined the income of the appellant as Rs.1,09,72,680/- as against the income declared by the appellant of Rs.1,88,920/- and passed an order under Section

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

271(1)(c) and 271F were initiated. 12 12. It is observed in paragraph 5.4 of the order dated 31.03.2013, that in the previous years, the assessee has opted to club the income of minor children with her income, as the TDS deducted from the Banks are in the name of assessee. Therefore, the income of minor children are clubbed

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI. GALI JANARDHANA REDDY

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

271(1)(c) and 271F were initiated. 10.It is observed in paragraph 5.4 of the order dated 31.03.2013 that in the previous years, the assessee has opted to club the income of minor children with her income, as the TDS 11 deducted from the Banks are in the name of assessee. Therefore, the income of minor children are clubbed with

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.WINTAC LTD.,

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 271(1)(c) and issued demand notice. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 30-03-2001 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Authority’) challenging the same on various grounds. The First Appellate Authority after considering the matter in detail held that receipt

SRI M SHANTHA KUMAR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.G.Ramesh Writ Petition Nos.2176 & 11524/2012 (T-It) Between: Sri M Shantha Kumar Aged About 63 Years S/O Muniyappa Proprietor M/S Satya Hospital No.1, 1933/1, 1934 Kammanahalli Main Road Bangalore 560 084 ...Petitioner (By Sri. Maheshkiran Shetty, Advocate) And: 1 The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii Queens Road, Bangalore 2 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Mission Road, Bangalore. ...Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan J Neeralgi, Advocate For R1& R2) These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Quash The Order Passed By The 1St Respondent Dated 05.04.2010 Vide Annexure G & Etc. These Writ Petitions Coming On For Preliminary Hearing, This Day, The Court Made The Following:

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (iv) the order dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure-L) passed by the Appellate Authority in the appeal filed against the aforesaid order of penalty dated 19.05.2010. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The sole contention urged by the learned