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

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

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

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

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

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in omitting to recognize that the basis for the penalty 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

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

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in omitting to recognize that the basis for the penalty 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

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

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in omitting to recognize that the basis for the penalty 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

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

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in omitting to recognize that the basis for the penalty 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

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

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in omitting to recognize that the basis for the penalty 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

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

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in omitting to recognize that the basis for the penalty 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

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

5. Date of passing 15.02.2022 15.02.2022 15.02.2022 15.02.2022 15.02.2022 penalty orders 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

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

5. Date of passing 15.02.2022 15.02.2022 15.02.2022 15.02.2022 15.02.2022 penalty orders 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

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

253, then the appeal of the said authority lies with the Tribunal. However appeal against the orders passed by the AO or any authority exercising similar power lies before the CIT(A) u/s 246A of the Act. The section 246A(j)(B) provided filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The provision of sec. 246A(j)(B) provides as under

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

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 of s. 269SS

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

5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole matrix of the disputed issue as envisaged by the learned Authorized Representative on the levy of penalty under Section 271FA of the Act on the co-operative bank for non-filing information of transactions in the Annual Information Return (AIR),under the provisions of Section 285BA