ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not even furnished a return of income for the Asst. Year in question, till the Department issued a notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. iii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01.04.1998 would

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

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

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

SHRI. ASLAM PASHA,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15

271 (1) ( C) needs to be deleted. 5. The defective notice did not indicated whether it was issued to the assessee for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing officer failed to specifying the default in his notice. 6. Usually Department uses Printed Penally Notices, but in the assessee's case the penalty notice

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 271(1)(c)/270A the Act of 6. 6 months from the 31.12.2021 end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty initiated 7. Decision 14.01.2022 14.01.2022 14.01.2022 14.01.2022 Rs.83,430/- Rs.1,33,488/- Rs.3,53,187/- Rs.4,20,586/- 15.02.2022 15.02.2022 15.02.2022 15.02.2022 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 31.12.2021 Time barred Time barred Time barred Time barred Time

RAMAKRISHNA MURALI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

271(1)(c) 15.09.2015 2013-14 Asst. order 144 29.03.2016 3.4 It is submitted by the ld AR that even in the letter dt. 24.05.2018, the Assessing Officer has not provided the certified copy of impugned penalty order u/s 271D of the Act. Only a photocopy of the penalty order u/s 271D of the Act was given to the assessee

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

271, Section 271A, [Section 271AAA,] [Section 271AAB,] Section 271F, [Section 271FB,] Section 272AA or Section 272BB; 7. In our view, the filing of an appeal is a statutory right provided by the statute and which is to be exercised by the assessee in the manner as provided by the Act. The Act provides appeal can be filed against

K UMESH SHETTY ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri K. Umesh Shetty, The Income-Tax No. 1441, Kamadhenu, Ii Cross, Officer, Ii Phase, Chandra Layout, Vs. Ward 3 (2) (4), Vijayanagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 040. Pan: Augps2714M Appellant Respondent

u/s. 271D was passed on 22.02.2018 which is after a delay of 36 months from the date of assessment order. Our attention was drawn to the provisions of section 275 of the IT Act and it was pointed out that the penalty order is bad in law as per the provision of this Page 3 of 6 section

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

ASADULLAH KHAN,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MANDYA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 271(1)(b)/271F of the Act, as the case may be, in all these cases by issuing notice dated 26.03.2013, which was served upon the respective assessees on 28-03-2013. However, the assessing officer has passed all the penalty orders only on 26- 12-2016, i.e., after expiry of almost three and half years

MANJUNATH B ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 264 of the Act made on 29-3-2004, cannot be sustained. 20. A word of caution. The authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee, under a mistake, misconception or on not being properly . ITA No.1284 & 1285/Bang/2024 Page