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 GULBARGA vs. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR

271(1)(c) read with the explanation indicates that the said Section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue. The penalty under that provision is a civil liability, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting a civil 65 liability as is the case in the matter of prosecution u/S

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

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

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

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

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES 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

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY 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

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK 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

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND 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

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST 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