M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 272BB or sub- section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section

BHAVANISHANKER NAIK,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

271D of Rs.7 lakhs was levied by penalty order dated 24.11.2023. 9. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee challenged the same before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The main contentions of the assessee were that agreement for sale was entered into on 31.1.2015 where the amount of Rs.7 lakhs is received in cash. The amendment to provisions of section 269SS

VIJAYARANGAM RANGANATH PRAVHAKAR,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay of 426 days and proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the penalty u/s. 271D could not be automatically imposed when the assessee had valid explanations for receiving the said amounts in cash and also submitted that the advance amount towards the sale of property has been

PRIYADARSHINI ULAVEESH KASETTY PATEL ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

271D of the Act. 3. Similarly, in respect of the penalty levied u/s. 271E of the Act, the assessee submitted that the said amount received from her paternal uncle was repaid after she got an employment and therefore this is also a payment made to her close relative and therefore the provision of section 269T would not be applicable

PRIYADARSHINI ULAVEESH KASETTY PATEL ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

271D of the Act. 3. Similarly, in respect of the penalty levied u/s. 271E of the Act, the assessee submitted that the said amount received from her paternal uncle was repaid after she got an employment and therefore this is also a payment made to her close relative and therefore the provision of section 269T would not be applicable

DR. SANKARAN SUNDAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

condonation of delay application filed by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Without Prejudice to the other grounds above, the Appellant denies himself liable to the penalty levied by the learned assessing officer under Section 271D

JAGANNATH INDRANI,BENGALURU, KARNATAKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 269SS and confirmed the penalty u/s. 271D of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). But unfortunately, the assessee had not appeared to the various hearing notices and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had decided the appeal on merits based on the materials available on record. The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed

DOREGULING PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MUNDGOD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, , SIRSI

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

section 273B in view which mandates that the penalty should not be levied if there is a reasonable cause. 2.2. In the light of the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 85,06,510/- levied u/s 271D of the Act. 3. The grounds are taken without prejudice to one another and the Appellant craves