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 total income or loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

c)(a)(4) of the I.T. act, which came into effect on 01.06.2007 would be applicable only for the assessment year 2009-10 and not for the current assessment year 2008-09 by 60 relying several judgments and an order dated 29.07.2006 and held that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the I.T. Act was erroneous. On this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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(1)(c

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(1)(c

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

RAHIM SAIB HIRIYUR HYDER ALI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

section 14(3) rws 254 rws 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.09.2021 bearing DIN No.ITBA/AAST/S/143(3) /2021-22/1035906288(1) issued by the Respondent No.1 for the AY 2010-11 herein referred as Annexure-A1. b. Issue a writ of Certiorari and direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing Notice of demand issued