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

KANAKARA RAJENDRA PRASAD REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-3(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2013-14

u/s. 271-E of the Act shall be imposed by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT). The AO vide letter dated 9.8.2016 intimated the JCIT, range 3(2), Bangalore (JCIT) regarding the default u/s.269-T. The JCIT issued a show cause notice u/s.271-E of the Act before imposing penalty dated 10.8.2016. The JCIT finally by order dated 27.1.2017 imposed penalty

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

M/S. DRL LOGTISTICS PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

269 SS of the Act was due to reasonable cause on account of the ignorance of statutory provisions and therefore, the penalty imposed deserves to be cancelled. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the penalty levied of Rs. 10,50,000/- and Rs. 10,25,000/ aggregating

M/S. DRL LOGTISTICS PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

269 SS of the Act was due to reasonable cause on account of the ignorance of statutory provisions and therefore, the penalty imposed deserves to be cancelled. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the penalty levied of Rs. 10,50,000/- and Rs. 10,25,000/ aggregating

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

M/S. PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 14 of 62 4. Ground Nos.1 to 4 in the AY 2014-15 and ground Nos.1 & 2 in the AY 2015-16 are general in nature, which

M/S PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. IT(TP)A No.3336/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.199/Bang/2021 M/s. Praxier India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 14 of 62 4. Ground Nos.1 to 4 in the AY 2014-15 and ground Nos.1 & 2 in the AY 2015-16 are general in nature, which