Search: penalty u/s 271

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/2564/2005HC Karnataka13 Dec 2012

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

15. Insofar as the penalty relatable to the difference in the accounts of M/s.Mysore Minerals Limited to the tune of Rs.4,92,448/- is concerned, the assessee accepted the said addition as he was not able to reconcile itself. Nothing is found as to prove that the assessee has consciously made the concealment or furnished inadequate particulars of his income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BPL SANYO FINANCE LTD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA/652/2006HC Karnataka11 Sept 2013

Bench: The Tribunal Was Arising From The Order Dated 4Th June 2004 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Bangalore (For Short “The

Section 115JSection 133Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 115JA of the Act. The return of income was processed and accordingly an intimation to the assessee, under Section 143(1) of the Act was given. On 8.9.1998 it was taken up for scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee under Section 139(5) of the Act filed revised returns on 18th January 1999 seeking correction

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI MUNINAGA REDDY

ITA/5/2014HC Karnataka21 Sept 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 133ASection 260Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act observing at para 6 thereof that, “6. We are constrained to reject the assessee’s contention. We are pained to note that the Tribunal completely ignored the assessment order which was not based on any concession from the assessee. Concealment of income in the return filed by the assessee is a glaring fact

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 (1)

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

ITA/251/2016HC Karnataka21 Sept 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 8 271(1)(c) of the Act observing at para 6 thereof that, “6. We are constrained to reject the assessee’s contention. We are pained to note that the Tribunal completely ignored the assessment order which was not based on any concession from the assessee. Concealment of income in the return filed by the assessee is a glaring

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

ITA/332/2007HC Karnataka26 Nov 2013

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

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

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

ITA/340/2007HC Karnataka25 Sept 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 260Section 271(1)(c)Section 72

15-09- 2006 & CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-19(1), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT: (DILIP B. BHOSALE J.) This appeal, under Section