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 MWP LTD

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

disallowing the said claim of 4 Rs.4,40,00,000-00. Thereafter it was observed in the end of the order that ‘Penalty under u/s 271

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

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

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

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.22,98,284/- is imposed. 5. Aggrieved by both the orders

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 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.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. 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

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