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

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 SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNUR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBBALI

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

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

3 of 14 then, such person shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct or pay as aforesaid.] (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner.” 4. Sec.273B of the Act provides that no penalty shall be imposed

M/S SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , RANEBENNURU

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

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

3 of 14 then, such person shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct or pay as aforesaid.] (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner.” 4. Sec.273B of the Act provides that no penalty shall be imposed

M/S SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

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

3 of 14 then, such person shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct or pay as aforesaid.] (2) Any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner.” 4. Sec.273B of the Act provides that no penalty shall be imposed

NDS LIMITED - INDIA BRANCH OFFICE,BANGALORE vs. DDIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T(T.P) A. No.1515/Bang/2010 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Nds Limited – India Branch Office, Vs. Dy. Director Of Income Tax, No.9, Ashford Park View, (International Taxation), 80 Ft Road, Koramangala Iii Block, Circle 1 (1), Bangalore. Bangalore-560 034 Pan Aabcn 2524L Appellant Respondent.

226). 3.27 The impugned order of assessment dated December 29, 2009 was made based on an order dated October 28, 2009, purportedly under section 92CA made by the JDIT, TPO II, Bangalore. However, the said transfer pricing order is made without jurisdiction and hence invalid. In view of the provisions of the Act and the notifications, it is evident that

NXP INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

226 under section 234C of the Act. 9.The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. All the above grounds may be considered independent and without prejudice of each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. METRIC STREAM INFOTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

u/s 271 F of Rs. 5000/-. 6.5 Therefore respectfully following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's findings in the case ell Vs. KTC Tyres (India) Ltd 120141 50 taxmann.com 2.32 (SC) and the Hon'ble Hyderabad HCs decision in the case of Leo Edibles & Fats Ltd Vs. Tax Recovery Officer (central), Hyderabad [2018] 99 taxmann.com 226 the appeal

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

226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere\nwith the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Misc.\nPetition only on the ground of delay.\n\n11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is\nallowed. The impugned order passed by the Income Tax\nAppellate Tribunal dismissing the Misc. Petition on the ground\nof delay

H. SRINIVAS REDDY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee for A

u/s 142(1) issued to the assessee was also\nreceived by the AR during the assessment proceedings. The contention\nthat no intimation was given to the assessee after the assessment order\nwas returned undelivered with postal remarks is not true. The\nassessment order along with the demand notice was handed over to\nNotice Server and physically served

H. SRINIVAS REDDY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee for A

u/s 142(1) issued to the assessee was also\nreceived by the AR during the assessment proceedings. The contention\nthat no intimation was given to the assessee after the assessment order\nwas returned undelivered with postal remarks is not true. The\nassessment order along with the demand notice was handed over to\nNotice Server and physically served

H. SRINIVAS REDDY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee for A

u/s 142(1) issued to the assessee was also\nreceived by the AR during the assessment proceedings. The contention\nthat no intimation was given to the assessee after the assessment order\nwas returned undelivered with postal remarks is not true. The\nassessment order along with the demand notice was handed over to\nNotice Server and physically served

ARM EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

226 u/s 234B and INR 4,086 u/s 234C of the Act while computing the tax payable. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in serving notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiating penalty proceedings for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271 C. So far as penal provisions are concerned, the penalty is for lapse on the part of the assessee and it has nothing to do with whether or not the taxes were ultimately recovered through other means. The provisions regarding interest in delay in depositing the taxes are set out in Section 201(1A). These provisions provide that

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed to invite your attention to the Instructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to time, as referred above, through which the Board has emphasized upon the need to focus on gathering evidences during Search/Survey

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed to invite your attention to the Instructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to time, as referred above, through which the Board has emphasized upon the need to focus on gathering evidences during Search/Survey

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty or launching of prosecution. Further, such actions show the Department as a whole and officers concerned in poor light. 2. I am further directed to invite your attention to the Instructions/Guidelines issued by CBDT from time to time, as referred above, through which the Board has emphasized upon the need to focus on gathering evidences during Search/Survey