GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. 6.1. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is established that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. 6.1. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are\nallowed

253(5) of\nthe Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period\nof limitation where it is established that there exists a sufficient\ncause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal\nwithin the prescribed time.\n6.1. The explanation therefore, becomes relevant to determine\nwhether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause

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.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

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.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

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.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

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.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

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

u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income &\n27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the\nprovisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above.\"\n12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where\nthe AO has initiated the penalty proceedings in his/her assessment order, the said\ndate

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. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

253[(b) nothing contained in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 20 shall apply to any bank referred to in sub-section (1), insofar as the said sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) precludes that bank from entering into any commitment for granting any loan or advance to or on behalf of a company

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

253[(b) nothing contained in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 20 shall apply to any bank referred to in sub-section (1), insofar as the said sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) precludes that bank from entering into any commitment for granting any loan or advance to or on behalf of a company

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

253[(b) nothing contained in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 20 shall apply to any bank referred to in sub-section (1), insofar as the said sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) precludes that bank from entering into any commitment for granting any loan or advance to or on behalf of a company

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

253[(b) nothing contained in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 20 shall apply to any bank referred to in sub-section (1), insofar as the said sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) precludes that bank from entering into any commitment for granting any loan or advance to or on behalf of a company

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

253[(b) nothing contained in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 20 shall apply to any bank referred to in sub-section (1), insofar as the said sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) precludes that bank from entering into any commitment for granting any loan or advance to or on behalf of a company

M/S. SUCO SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK LTD., ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

253[(b) nothing contained in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 20 shall apply to any bank referred to in sub-section (1), insofar as the said sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) precludes that bank from entering into any commitment for granting any loan or advance to or on behalf of a company