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.

b) Penalty 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

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.

b) Penalty 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

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.

b) Penalty 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

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.

b) Penalty 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

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

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

4 of 23\ndeficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders.\nThe assessee was under a bonafide belief that the penalty appeal will\nbe decided only after adjudication of quantum proceedings wherein\na remand report was to be obtained from the assessing officer on\nmutuality aspect and opportunity of hearing will be provided for\npenalty appeal. However

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

4 of 23\nITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024\nThe Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore\ndeficiency letter was received for appeal filed against penalty orders.\nThe assessee was under a bonafide belief that the penalty appeal will\nbe decided only after adjudication of quantum proceedings wherein\na remand report was to be obtained from the assessing officer on\nmutuality aspect and opportunity

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

B), then though penalty proceedings are in the nature of civil liability, in fact, it is penal in nature. In either event, the person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in section 271 should be made known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on him as section 274 makes it clear that the assessee

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

4 of 8 income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law. Before laying down the parameters, Their Lordships have analysed the provisions of section 274 for sending notices and for initiating proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). The relevant observations

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

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

B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2016-17 Akash Education & Development Trust, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner No.22nd Ward, Prashanth Nagar, of Income Tax, Devanahalli, Central Range-2, Bengaluru – 562 110. Bangalore. PAN: AACTA 7888E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev Nulvi, AR Respondent by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli

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

249 ITR 125 (Guj) & CIT v. Manu Engineering Works, 122 ITR 306 (Guj); and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shri E. Krishnappa v. ITO in ITA No.313 to 315/Bang/2014 dated 14.08.2015. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR has submitted that mere non-striking a particular column in the notice would not be that much to fatal

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

249 ITR 125 (Guj) & CIT v. Manu Engineering Works, 122 ITR 306 (Guj); and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shri E. Krishnappa v. ITO in ITA No.313 to 315/Bang/2014 dated 14.08.2015. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR has submitted that mere non-striking a particular column in the notice would not be that much to fatal

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

JOHN DEVELOPERS,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