SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 143(3) dated 26/03/2013, was itself filed with a delay of 125 days. This fact is not mentioned in the affidavit, even though it was stated in para 5 that the Income Tax Practitioner ("HP"), Shri Sudhindra appeared on behalf of the appellant during the assessment proceedings before the AO. In addition, the fact that same ITP also appeared

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) of the act for\nA.Ys. 2013-14 & 2015-16 to 2016-17, the assessee filed appeals\nbefore the Ld.CIT(A) belatedly as under:\nAY\nDate of\norder\npassed by\nAO\nDate of\nservice as\nper Form 35\nDate of\nfiling\nWhether appeal is\nfiled with time

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

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

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) of the act for\nA.Ys. 2013-14 & 2015-16 to 2016-17, the assessee filed appeals\nbefore the Ld.CIT(A) belatedly as under:\nAY\nDate of\norder\npassed by\nAO\nDate of\nservice as\nper Form 35\nDate of\nfiling\nWhether appeal is\nfiled with time

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

RAICHUR CITY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. DIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Laliet Kumarraichur City Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Gunj Road, Raichur-584 102. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.A Respondent By : Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel

271, Section 271A, [Section 271AAA,] [Section 271AAB,] Section 271F, [Section 271FB,] Section 272AA or Section 272BB; 7. In our view, the filing of an appeal is a statutory right provided by the statute and which is to be exercised by the assessee in the manner as provided by the Act. The Act provides appeal can be filed against

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

HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

246A of the Act", without appreciating that the CIT's directions under section 263 to the AO in the instant case, was not conclusive but was merely a direction to further examine the issues on merit and facts. 3. Computation` of relief u/s 10A f the Act 3.1 The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fats

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

KYALASANAHALLI NARAYANAPPA SUBRAMANI,CNO KOTHANUR POST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(1) BENGALURU , KORAMANGALA

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

penalty proceedings by issue of notice\nunder section 274 read with section 271 and such other provisions of the\nAct:\n(Total tax effect: Rs. 25,25,867/-)\n3. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. filed a paper book by\nenclosing synopsis as well as the various hearing notices issued by\nthe ld. CIT(A) and also copy