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

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not attracted in such situation.” 14. The observations made by the Tribunal, at the outset

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Penalty under u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately’. 3. The assessee contested the said proceedings by contending that on the date

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

penalty u/S 271(1) read with Section 4A thereto. Hence he directed penalty proceedings u/S 271(1)(c) be initiated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAKINO ASIA PVT LTD

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). There is merit in the assessee’s plea that in the original intimation, the claim

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S NIRANI SUGARS LTD.,

The appeal stands disposed off

Bench: S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV,VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately, thereby clearly putting the assessee to notice, the grounds which he has to meet

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

penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 21.02.2022 bearing DIN No.ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/2021- 22/1039971497(1) issued by the Respondent

M/S GAYATHRI EXPORTS vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

penalty on you should not be made u/s 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.503/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.506/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.502/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.501/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.505/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

u/s 132 of the Act and therefore such a surrender cannot amount to voluntary surrender and Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.500/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 the Assessing Authority was justified in imposing penalty under Section 271

SRI.P.M.ABDULLA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: The Commissioner

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner - 3 - of Income

SHRI. RAMDAS T. VERNEKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, I pass the following order

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

penalty u/S 271(1)(c) has been initiated against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-A passed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

271 E of the Act should not be imposed for such violation of the provisions of section 269 T of the Act. The payments of Rs.14.6 crores made in cash by the assessee to AI were made on several occasions between 28.10.2004 to 22.3.2005, and payment of Rs.0.12 crores (12 lakhs) to AE was made in cash by the assessee