M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act 6. 6 months from the 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty initiated 7. Decision Time barred Time Time barred Time barred Time barred barred M/s. Sri Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore 6.1 Before proceeding further, it is apposite here to take note

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act 6. 6 months from the 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty initiated 7. Decision Time barred Time Time barred Time barred Time barred barred M/s. Sri Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore 6.1 Before proceeding further, it is apposite here to take note

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst. year 2014-15 to\n2016-17 for the concealment of Income & u/s 270A of the Act for the Asst.\nyear 2017-18 & 2018-19 for under reporting of income.\n3.2 Aggrieved by the penalty orders, the assessee has filed the appeals\nbefore the ld. CIT(A) for all the impugned Asst

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst. year 2014-15 to\n2016-17 for the concealment of Income & u/s 270A of the Act for the Asst.\nyear 2017-18 & 2018-19 for under reporting of income.\n3.2 Aggrieved by the penalty orders, the assessee has filed the appeals\nbefore the ld. CIT(A) for all the impugned Asst

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst. year 2014-15 to\n2016-17 for the concealment of Income & u/s 270A of the Act for the Asst.\nyear 2017-18 & 2018-19 for under reporting of income.\n3.2 Aggrieved by the penalty orders, the assessee has filed the appeals\nbefore the ld. CIT(A) for all the impugned Asst

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI CGANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

RAMAKRISHNA MURALI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

271(1)(c) 15.09.2015 2013-14 Asst. order 144 29.03.2016 3.4 It is submitted by the ld AR that even in the letter dt. 24.05.2018, the Assessing Officer has not provided the certified copy of impugned penalty order u/s 271D of the Act. Only a photocopy of the penalty order u/s 271D of the Act was given to the assessee

M/S B AND B INFRATECH LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2005-06

u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately”. In the penalty notice also, the AO has not struck off inapplicable charge/limb. Hence it appears that he was not clear about the reason for which the penalty proceedings have been initiated. The following observations made by the AO in the penalty order would show that the AO was not clear

K UMESH SHETTY ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri K. Umesh Shetty, The Income-Tax No. 1441, Kamadhenu, Ii Cross, Officer, Ii Phase, Chandra Layout, Vs. Ward 3 (2) (4), Vijayanagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 040. Pan: Augps2714M Appellant Respondent

u/s. 271D was passed on 22.02.2018 which is after a delay of 36 months from the date of assessment order. Our attention was drawn to the provisions of section 275 of the IT Act and it was pointed out that the penalty order is bad in law as per the provision of this Page 3 of 6 section

SRI SATISH C KANDKUR ,YADGIR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , KALABURAGI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

246 days. 2.1 We have carefully gone through the condonation petition. We find that there is a good and sufficient reason in filing this appeal belatedly, before this Tribunal and considering the genuine problem of assessee, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit this appeal for hearing. ITA No.47/Bang/2019

SRI.SATISH C.KANDKUR ,YADGIR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , GULBARGA

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

246 days. 2.1 We have carefully gone through the condonation petition. We find that there is a good and sufficient reason in filing this appeal belatedly, before this Tribunal and considering the genuine problem of assessee, we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit this appeal for hearing. ITA No.47/Bang/2019

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is\ninitiated separately.\n14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business\nthe ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document\nA/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to\nincome earned by the assessee while returning from the various\ndepots of KSBCL. The alcohol manufactured

ASADULLAH KHAN,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MANDYA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 271(1)(b)/271F of the Act, as the case may be, in all these cases by issuing notice dated 26.03.2013, which was served upon the respective assessees on 28-03-2013. However, the assessing officer has passed all the penalty orders only on 26- 12-2016, i.e., after expiry of almost three and half years

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

section 153A would cover the pending returnITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore ITA No.844/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Plathotathil John ITA Nos.845 to 847/Bang/2023 M/s. John Developers, Bangalore , ITA Nos.961, 962, 982 to 987 & 1012/Bang/2023 M/s. John Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 22 of 147 filed as well and would not be restricted to incriminating material found