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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

business premises 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

business premises 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

business premises 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

business premises 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 CIT(A) vs. M/S DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

business premises 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

business premises 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

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

income. In the second return for A.Y.1998-99 filed, the assessee returns a revised business loss and claims its carry forward. The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 148 for this year but dropped the proceedings u/s 148 vide letter dated 04/04/03 in which he mentions that the claim of carry forward of loss is not being allowed as the return

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

business Date of Judgment 21-06-2018, ITA No.504/2017 The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax CIT(A) & Another Vs. M/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. 10/18 premises 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

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

business of manufacture and export of cashew kernels. The appellant undertakes sale of products inside the Country. It filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-2010 declaring total income of Rs.1,82,62,755/-. Subsequently, notices were issued under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer. It is urged

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately’. 3. The assessee contested the said proceedings by contending that on the date of levy of penalty, the assessee ceased to exist inasmuch as the same was merged with the UB Holdings Ltd., vide Karnataka High Court order dated 31.08.2005. It was contended that the notice issued in proceedings is invalid. On merits

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: The Commissioner

business in raw rubbers. The assessee had filed his return of 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

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

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

FATIMA W/O NASIRUDDIN BAGAWAN vs. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice M.Nagaprasanna Writ Petition No.112881/2019 (Gm-Res) C/W. Writ Petition Nos.112882/2019 & 112883/2019

business, proceedings were instituted under the provisions of Section 276CC of the Act. Section 276CC reads as follows: 276CC. If a person wilfully fails to furnish in due time the return of fringe benefits which he is required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or by notice given under sub- section (2) of the said section

NASIRUDDIN S/O PAPLUSAB BAGAWAN vs. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice M.Nagaprasanna Writ Petition No.112881/2019 (Gm-Res) C/W. Writ Petition Nos.112882/2019 & 112883/2019

business, proceedings were instituted under the provisions of Section 276CC of the Act. Section 276CC reads as follows: 276CC. If a person wilfully fails to furnish in due time the return of fringe benefits which he is required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or by notice given under sub- section (2) of the said section

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAINI ABRASIVES P LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, for considering the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in setting-aside the order of penalty levied u/s. 271 (1)(C) of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstances arising in the case nor the legal position and consequently recorded a perverse finding? (ii) Whether the Tribunal