THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5……………………….The penalty

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5……………………….The penalty

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5……………………….The penalty

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013-\n14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the\nimpugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant\n assessment years under consideration.\n8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion\nthat the delay in filing the appeal

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013-\n14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the\nimpugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant\n assessment years under consideration.\n8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion\nthat the delay in filing the appeal

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

u/s 271(1)(b) of\nthe Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before\nNFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC\nexplaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal\nbefore NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows:\n\"5.........\n.The penalty

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) at Rs.10,50,340/- & Rs.1,70,08,720/- respectively for these two assessment years. 1.1 There was a short delay of 4 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. filed a condonation

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

u/s 271(1)(b) of\nthe Act. There was a delay of 351 days in filing the appeal before\nNFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC\nexplaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal\nbefore NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows:\n"5.......... .The penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

penalty appeals filed against orders for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2015-16 to 2016-17 u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013- 14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years under consideration. 8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

penalty appeals filed against orders for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2015-16 to 2016-17 u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013- 14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years under consideration. 8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

penalty appeals filed against orders for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2015-16 to 2016-17 u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013- 14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years under consideration. 8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

penalty appeals filed against orders for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2015-16 to 2016-17 u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013- 14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years under consideration. 8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

penalty appeals filed against orders for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2015-16 to 2016-17 u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013- 14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant assessment years under consideration. 8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT