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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

271(1)(c)(iii) of the Act i.e., Rs.41,04,239/-. It would be necessary to notice the observations made by the Assessing officer for levying penalty, which read thus:- “The assessee company had filed its original return of income on 31.10.2002. While filing this return, the assessee company was aware that the return filed for asst.year

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

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[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

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[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

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[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

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[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

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[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

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[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation

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[1][c] of the Act, rejecting the explanation given by the Respondent-Assessee. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Manjunatha Cotton

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

u/s 27I E of IT Act. It may be mentioned that in banking parlance ‘current account’ is treated as loan and the account holder is treated as a borrower which is opened only by obtaining some collateral security of stock/FDs. It is unlike saving bank of fixed deposits where the bank acts as a Borrower. (v) The transactions between

SRI.FATHERAJ SINGHVI, vs. UNION OF INDIA

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 6350/2015 DATED 20/08/2015. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT As in all appeals, common Judgment and the order of the learned Single Judge

M/S PROCESS PUMPS vs. UNION OF INDIA

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 6350/2015 DATED 20/08/2015. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT As in all appeals, common Judgment and the order of the learned Single Judge

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 6350/2015 DATED 20/08/2015. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT As in all appeals, common Judgment and the order of the learned Single Judge

M/S CATHODIC CONTROL CO. LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 6350/2015 DATED 20/08/2015. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT As in all appeals, common Judgment and the order of the learned Single Judge

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

The appeal is allowed in part

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

U/s. 260A of I.T. Act, 1961 arising out of Order dated 02-01-2006 passed in ITA.No.81/Bang/2005 for the year 2001-02, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein and allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the ITAT, Bangalore in ITA.No.81/Bang/2005 dated

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

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

U/S 200[3] OF PROVISO TO SUB SECTION [3] OF SECTION 206C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ANNEXURES-A1 TO A3. W.P.NOs.16939-16950/2014: BETWEEN: 1. M/s.TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NITHYANANDA COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, MOODBIDRI-574 227, (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 26 MRS.S.USHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O SRI.A.P.NATH) 2. SRI SAMPATHRATHNA RAO S S/O.SUNDAR