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 to the income

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

additions to the returned income, except making a bald charge against the assessee that it had furnished the inaccurate particulars, which is an essential requisite of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the absence of such finding, the penalty order is liable to be quashed. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial precedents

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

additions to the returned income, except making a bald charge against the assessee that it had furnished the inaccurate 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. 6/18 particulars, which is an essential requisite of section 271

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

additions to the returned income, except making a bald charge against the assessee that it had furnished the inaccurate 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. 6/18 particulars, which is an essential requisite of section 271

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

additions to the returned income, except making a bald charge against the assessee that it had furnished the inaccurate 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. 6/18 particulars, which is an essential requisite of section 271

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

additions to the returned income, except making a bald charge against the assessee that it had furnished the inaccurate 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. 6/18 particulars, which is an essential requisite of section 271

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

additions to the returned income, except making a bald charge against the 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. 6/18 assessee that it had furnished the inaccurate particulars, which is an essential requisite of section 271

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

additions to the returned income, except making a bald charge against the 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. 6/18 assessee that it had furnished the inaccurate particulars, which is an essential requisite of section 271

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

u/s 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through an authorized representative, you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271.” 3. Appellant contested the proceedings

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

u/s 143(3) received from the Assessing Officer. The decision of Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. V State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC) would be applicable to a case like this since the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, if any, if at best technical in nature. The assessee has shown reasonable cause for filing his return of income

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: The Commissioner

income for the assessment years in question. The Assessing Officer has issued an order under 143 (3) read with 254 of the Act and made additions. 3. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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), issued by the Respondent No.1 for the AY 2010-11 herein marked as Annexure- A4. e. Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to follow the direction of the Tribunal and pass the assessment order for the impugned assessment year

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

income and consequently penalty u/S 271(1)(c) has been initiated against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by the respondent No.1, petitioner preferred a revision petition before the respondent No.2-Revisioinal Authority which was also dismissed vide impugned order at Annexure-H dated 07.03.2017. 4. In addition

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

u/s. 143(2) of the IT Act for scrutiny of the return of income to the assessee. On 28.10.2010 Section 92CA(1) of the IT Act, first Reference made by Assessing Officer to TPO-2, Bangalore to compute arms length price in respect of export sale of iron ore to M/s. GLA Trading International P. Ltd., worth Rs.205

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

u/s 148 and had also duly filed the revised computation of income. The AO’s view is that “when the rental income was already offered to tax, it was in the knowledge of the 6 assessee that the capital gains are also attracted on taking possession of the built up area”. As already stated, the issue was debatable

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

penalty proceedings under Section 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

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

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

penalty proceedings under Section 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