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.

section 249 (3) of the Act. In fact, the reasons put forward only show lack of due diligence on part of the appellant company in making statutory compliances viz. presenting of appeal within the prescribed period, and attending to statutory notices.” ITA No.700/Bang/2024 (AY 2013-14) (Penalty appeal): 5.3 This appeal emanated from the penalty levied u/s 271

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.

section 249 (3) of the Act. In fact, the reasons put forward only show lack of due diligence on part of the appellant company in making statutory compliances viz. presenting of appeal within the prescribed period, and attending to statutory notices.” ITA No.700/Bang/2024 (AY 2013-14) (Penalty appeal): 5.3 This appeal emanated from the penalty levied u/s 271

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.

section 249 (3) of the Act. In fact, the reasons put forward only show lack of due diligence on part of the appellant company in making statutory compliances viz. presenting of appeal within the prescribed period, and attending to statutory notices.” ITA No.700/Bang/2024 (AY 2013-14) (Penalty appeal): 5.3 This appeal emanated from the penalty levied u/s 271

MS.DIVYA S RAO ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c), and u/s 271(1)(b) and 271E of the Act for assessment year 2008-09 Page 2 of 13 ITA No.2384 to 2387/Bang/2018 “1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant, are opposed to Law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case

SRI.K.VIJAY ARYA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2002-03

u/s. 271(1)(c). The relevant observations of Their Lordships are extracted hereunder for reference:- “59. As the provision stands, the penalty proceedings can be initiated on various grounds set out therein. If the order passed by the authority categorically records a finding regarding the existence of any said grounds mentioned therein and then penalty proceedings is initiated

NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. [(2009) 23VST 249 (SC)] as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

249 to 253 in para 38 to 48 and at p. 256 para 60 of the order. The next argument, advanced by the ld. counsel for the assessee 9. was that the amount in question received by the trust being from trustee itself, the transaction was neither of loan nor deposits and in any case, was not in contravention

M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

section 271(1)(c) are specified would not satisfy the requirements of law. Therefore, in the light of these facts, initiation of penalty proceedings is not in accordance with law and deserves to be annulled. In support of his contention, the ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court

SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

section 271(1)(c) are specified would not satisfy the requirements of law. Therefore, in the light of these facts, initiation of penalty proceedings is not in accordance with law and deserves to be annulled. In support of his contention, the ld. counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court

SRI. S.D. RADDI,DHARWAD vs. ASST.C.I.T., HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2003-04

u/s. 271(1)(c). The relevant observations of Their Lordships are extracted hereunder for reference:- “59. As the provision stands, the penalty proceedings can be initiated on various grounds set out therein. If the order passed by the authority categorically records a finding regarding the existence of any said grounds mentioned therein and then penalty proceedings is initiated

KANAKARA RAJENDRA PRASAD REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2013-14

271-E of the Act shall be imposed by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT). The AO vide letter dated 9.8.2016 intimated the JCIT, range 3(2), Bangalore (JCIT) regarding the default u/s.269-T. The JCIT issued a show cause notice u/s.271-E of the Act before imposing penalty dated 10.8.2016. The JCIT finally by order dated 27.1.2017 imposed penalty

SRI. GOVINDACHARY vs. D.C.I.T,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Section 249 of the Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal by way of a combined order dt.25.10.2013; since the learned CIT (Appeals) was of the view that the assessee had not established that there was sufficient cause for the delay of 439 days in filing the appeals for these two assessment years in time. In paras

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

section 249 (3) of\nthe Act. In fact, the reasons put forward only show lack of due diligence on part of\nthe appellant company in making statutory compliances viz. presenting of appeal\nwithin the prescribed period, and attending to statutory notices.”\nITA No.701/Bang/2024 (AY 2013-14) (Penalty appeal):\n5.4 This appeal emanated from the penalty levied u/s 271

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

section 249 (3) of\nthe Act. In fact, the reasons put forward only show lack of due diligence on part of\nthe appellant company in making statutory compliances viz. presenting of appeal\nwithin the prescribed period, and attending to statutory notices.”\nITA No.701/Bang/2024 (AY 2013-14) (Penalty appeal):\n5.4 This appeal emanated from the penalty levied u/s 271

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

249(4)(b) of the Act. 2.1 The other appeals are relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) & 271F of the Act, wherein the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of ld. AO levying the penalty under these provisions. 3. Facts of the case are that there was information in possession that the assessee

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

249(4)(b) of the Act. 2.1 The other appeals are relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) & 271F of the Act, wherein the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of ld. AO levying the penalty under these provisions. 3. Facts of the case are that there was information in possession that the assessee

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

249(4)(b) of the Act. 2.1 The other appeals are relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) & 271F of the Act, wherein the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of ld. AO levying the penalty under these provisions. 3. Facts of the case are that there was information in possession that the assessee

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

249(4)(b) of the Act. 2.1 The other appeals are relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) & 271F of the Act, wherein the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of ld. AO levying the penalty under these provisions. 3. Facts of the case are that there was information in possession that the assessee

SHRI. KRISHNAMURTHY NARYANAMURTHY,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16

section 271(1)(c) observed that the burden of proof is on the assessee to explain that there is no concealment or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in 251 ITR 99 (SC). Since the assessee did not comply to the show cause notice, the AO levied penalty u/s. 271