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

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

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269

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

penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269

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

penalty proceedings 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

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

penalty proceedings 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

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

penalty proceedings 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

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Act is not within reasonable time. 3.4 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. in ITA No.780 of 2015 vide judgement dated 13.10.2015, held as under: “8. We are unable to agree with the above submission of learned Standing counsel for the Revenue. Section

SREE RAJENDRA SURI GURUMANDIR TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTION) WARD-3,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Sree Rajendrasuri Gurumandir Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), 25 & 25/1, Jain Temple Road, Ward – 3, Vishwweswarapuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aajts 8921 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ar. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056681273 (1)] Dated 30.09.2023. 2. The Sole & Substantiating Ground Raised By The Assessee To Challenge Order Of Nfac Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.54,700/- Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act, For Delay In Filing The Return Of Income. The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income Was 30.09.2015 But The Assessee Filed Its Return On 31.03.2017. Accordingly, Ao Levied Penalty Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act Of Rs.54,700/-. Page 2 Of 9 3. At The Outset Of Hearing, The Learned Counsel Drew Our Attention That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By 328 Days. However, The Registry Has Not Raised Any Defect Memo For Delay In Filing The Appeal. An Application Dated 22.11.2024 Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Assessee Which Is As Under:

u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Act is not within reasonable time. 3.4 Further, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. in ITA No.780 of 2015 vide judgement dated 13.10.2015, held as under: Page 6 of 9 “8. We are unable to agree with the above submission of learned Standing counsel

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

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before\nNFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC\nexplaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal\nbefore NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows:\n"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

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

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act for\nA.Ys. 2013-14 & 2015-16 to 2016-17, the assessee filed appeals\nbefore the Ld.CIT(A) belatedly as under:\nAY\nDate of\norder\npassed by\nAO\nDate of\nservice as\nper Form 35\nDate of\nfiling\nWhether appeal is\nfiled with time

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act for\nA.Ys. 2013-14 & 2015-16 to 2016-17, the assessee filed appeals\nbefore the Ld.CIT(A) belatedly as under:\nAY\nDate of\norder\npassed by\nAO\nDate of\nservice as\nper Form 35\nDate of\nfiling\nWhether appeal is\nfiled with time

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

penalty was to be levied on the tax assessed under section 143 or as demanded under section 156 being tax assessed minus the amount paid under the provisional assessment order. The hon'ble Supreme Court before resorting to the interpretation of term in addition to the amount of the tax, if any, payable by him as appearing in section 271

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

penalty was to be levied on the tax\nassessed under section 143 or as demanded under section 156 being tax assessed\nminus the amount paid under the provisional assessment order. The hon'ble\nSupreme Court before resorting to the interpretation of term in addition to the\namount of the tax, if any, payable by him as appearing in section 271

MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED,MYSORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

penalty under section 271(1)(c) was passed on 13.03.2025 for the assessment year 2014- 15 and the staff of the appellant informed the committee regarding receipt of the said order. 11. The committee approached the Chartered Accountant and sought for further course of action. The Chartered Accountant logged into the e filing portal and informed that the appeal filed

MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED ,MYSORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, , MYSORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

penalty under section 271(1)(c) was passed on 13.03.2025 for the assessment year 2014- 15 and the staff of the appellant informed the committee regarding receipt of the said order. 11. The committee approached the Chartered Accountant and sought for further course of action. The Chartered Accountant logged into the e filing portal and informed that the appeal filed