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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

b) of subsection 1 of Section 153A of the Act. 9. It is further contended that Tribunal erroneously set-aside the assessment order passed for the year assessment year 2011- 12 holding that there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person (153A) in the file of the said person ignoring the intention of legislature

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

b) of subsection 1 of Section 153A of the Act. 7.It is further contended that Tribunal erroneously set-aside the assessment order passed for the year assessment year 2011- 12 holding that there is no satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person (153A) in the file of the said person ignoring the intention of legislature and even

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

Section 271 (1) (c) (iii) and Explanation-I (B) of the Act. Under this provision, if AO in the course of any proceedings under the Act is satisfied that any person has “concealed” the particulars of his income or furnish “inaccurate particulars” of such income, he may direct such person to pay by way of penalty not less than

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

B’ MAIN ROAD 4TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK KALYAN NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 043 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI P DINESH FOR SRI PARTHASARATHI.S. ADV.,) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 2 14.08.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.1488/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

b) any person or enterprise holds, directly or indirectly, shares carrying not less than twenty-six per cent of the voting power in each of such enterprises; or (c) a loan advanced by one enterprise to the other enterprise constitutes not less than fifty-one percent of the book value of the total assets of the other enterprise

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

B’ MAIN 4TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK KALYAN NAGAR BANGALORE-560 043. ….APPELLANT (BY SRI.P. DINESH FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVS.) AND: THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6(1) INCOME TAX OFFICES ROOM NO.732, BMTC BUILDING 80 FT. ROAD, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560095 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME

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

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 17.These are the grounds, which are urged by the learned counsel for the appellants/revenue seeking to set aside the order 18 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Bengaluru in ITA No.653(Bang) 2015, dated 29.07.2016 and to confirm the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central

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

SRI B GAJENDRA KUMAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

B. GAJENDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SON OF LATE D. VASUDEVA ACHARYA, PROP: M/S. SRI DURGA CREDITS & INVESTMENTS, “VASUDEVA” MAIN ROAD, HALEYANGADY – 574 146. ... APPELLANT. (common in all Appeals) (BY SRI S. PARTHASARATHI, SRI P.DINESH MALLAHARAOK & MRS. SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVS.) AND: THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), C.R. BUILDING, ATTAVAR, M.G.ROAD, MANGALORE – 575 001. ...RESPONDENT. (common

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(1)(c) for deliberately 3 furnishing inaccurate particulars and thus directed the Assessing Authority to initiate penalty proceedings. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal

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

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

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

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

271 -------------------- Total Rs.15,53,99,921 ------------------- 5. The appellant’s case was selected for scrutiny, subsequently, an assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the assessing officer accepting the returned income declared by the appellant. Thereafter, the revisional authority invoking the provisions under Section 263 of the Act, set-aside the scrutiny assessment, without directing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

1) of the Act, he declined to permit the assessee to carry forward the long-term capital loss of Rs.1,24,03,271/-. Consequently, he also set aside the order passed by the Assessing Authority insofar as the interest is concerned. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner