MR. SHIVAKUMAR MAHADEVAIAH ,MYSORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), MYSORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

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.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 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 appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

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.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 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 appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

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.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 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 appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

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.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 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 appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

M/S. VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES,SRISI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Show cause notices were issued to the assessee on 7.9.2021 and 14.1.2022.” 7.4 Contrary to this, he mentioned in para 7 of the penalty order in assessment year 2015-16 as follows: “7. The amount of tax sought to be evaded works

M/S. VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES,SRISI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Show cause notices were issued to the assessee on 7.9.2021 and 14.1.2022.” 7.4 Contrary to this, he mentioned in para 7 of the penalty order in assessment year 2015-16 as follows: “7. The amount of tax sought to be evaded works

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to\nwhether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of\nparticulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of\nincome. The Hon'ble High court has further laid down that certain\nprinted form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given\nwould not satisfy the requirement

DCIT-CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI, C.R. BUILDING , NAVANAGAR HUBLI vs. SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR KOMMI, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2015-16

156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. SMT. VANKADARA PADMAVATHI, HOSPET, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal by the revenue and the CO by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12

u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act, there was no specific observation of the AO under which limb penalty is to be levied which is clear from the order of the CIT(Appeals) at para 5.3.1. We find substance in the argument of the & CO 37/Bang/2024 Page 6 of 11 ld. AR of the assessee that this issue

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

SRI. ANAND,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement

MAHESHWARAPPA MUNIRAMU,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

156 of the Act was issued and served to the assessee. 8. The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that there is clear violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and therefore, the authorities below have rightly levied the penalty of Rs.20 lakhs and accordingly

MURMU PANKAJ KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

156 of the Act. The AO also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as well as u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act on or before the completion of the assessment proceedings. 3.1 Being aggrieved by the Order of the AO dated 22/01/2024 passed u/s 147 read with section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty was to be levied on the tax assessed under section 143 or as demanded under section 156 being tax assessed minus the amount paid under the provisional assessment order. The hon'ble Supreme Court before resorting to the interpretation of term in addition to the amount of the tax, if any, payable by him as appearing in section 271

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

penalty was to be levied on the tax\nassessed under section 143 or as demanded under section 156 being tax assessed\nminus the amount paid under the provisional assessment order. The hon'ble\nSupreme Court before resorting to the interpretation of term in addition to the\namount of the tax, if any, payable by him as appearing in section 271