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.

u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that

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.

u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that

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.

u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders. The assessee was under a bonafide belief that

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

249/- under Section 14A in the original and\nbelated returns, they blindly taxed the non-existent income\nreflected in the revised returns filed for the AYs 2019-20\nand 2020-21 and the belated return filed for AY 2019-20.\n8.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate that as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the\naverage

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

249/- under Section 14A in the original and\nbelated returns, they blindly taxed the non-existent income\nreflected in the revised returns filed for the AYs 2019-20\nand 2020-21 and the belated return filed for AY 2019-20.\n8.7.\nWithout prejudice, the Lower Authorities have\nfailed to appreciate that as per Rule 8D(2)(iii), only the\naverage

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

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

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

2. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has challenged the validity of these proceedings on the ground that in the show cause notice for levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), the AO has not specified Page 3 of 8 as to on what ground the AO intends to levy penalty, whether

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

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

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 on the Assessee. 4. It was the plea of the Assessee before CIT(A) that in terms of Section 275 (1) (c) of the Act, the penalty order

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

2. During the course of hearing of the appeals, the ld. counsel for the assessee has raised an additional ground challenging the validity of initiation of penalty proceedings. The additional ground raised in these appeals is extracted hereunder:- “ The order of the learned lower authorities u/s. 271(1)(c) is liable to be cancelled for the reason that the notice

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

2. During the course of hearing of the appeals, the ld. counsel for the assessee has raised an additional ground challenging the validity of initiation of penalty proceedings. The additional ground raised in these appeals is extracted hereunder:- “ The order of the learned lower authorities u/s. 271(1)(c) is liable to be cancelled for the reason that the notice

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

2. During the course of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has challenged the validity of these proceedings on the ground that in the show cause notice for levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), the AO has not specified as to on what ground the AO intends to levy penalty, whether it is on Page

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

2. The appeals for both the Assessment Years were filed on 13.12.2012, delayed by more than a year as per time prescribed u/s 249 of Income Tax Act. There is a delay of 439 days. The appeals are backed by an affidavit filed by the appellant’s Authorized Representative stating that :- “Appeal before the Honourable Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals

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

2 of 23\nITA Nos.701 & 704/Bang/2024 are with regard to sustaining penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15\nwhich are directed against the different orders of NFAC dated\n15.3.2024 and ITA Nos.700 & 703/Bang/2024 are with regard to\nsustaining penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for the assessment years\n2013

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

2 of 23\nITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024\nThe Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore\nITA Nos.701 & 704/Bang/2024 are with regard to sustaining penalty\nu/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15\nwhich are directed against the different orders of NFAC dated\n15.3.2024 and ITA Nos.700 & 703/Bang/2024 are with regard to\nsustaining penalty u/s 271

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the variousITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts & Hotels

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12 was found and seized. It contained entries relating to income earned by the assessee while returning from the various ITA No.838 to 843/Bang/2023 M/s. Paul Resorts