BOMMARABETTU MADHU SUDHANA ACHARYA ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, UDUPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

271-I, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA, or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or clause (b) of subsection (1) of section or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section

VIJAYARANGAM RANGANATH PRAVHAKAR,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

penalty u/s 271-D of the Act is bad in law in as much as the appellant has not committed any default u/s.269SS actionable u/s 271-D of the Act in as much as the advance for sale of land was received prior to the introduction of the amendment u/s 269SS of the Act and further that the provisions

SRI. PADMANABHA MANGALORE CHOWTA,MANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017 – 18

271D of the Act is bad in law in as much as the appellant has demonstrated reasonable cause u/s 273B of the Act for accepting cash of Rs. 15,70,0007- as part of the sale consideration and thus, the learned ClT[A] is not justified in sustaining the levy of penalty under the facts and in the circumstances

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) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above.” 12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings in his/her assessment order, the said date

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) for concealment of income & 27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above.” 12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings in his/her assessment order, the said date

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

u/s 270A). The penalty orders were passed after the stipulated time limit under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, as the action for imposition of penalty was initiated

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. 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

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

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

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

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

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

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

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

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

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

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

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

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

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

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

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

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

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 27113 section 271BA, section 27188, section 2710, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271M section 271FAB, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H, section 2711, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A sub-section (1) of section

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

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.\"\nThe 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

RAMAREDDY DASHARATHA,LAKSHMISAGARA NERALUR POST vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 271D. Due to this technical defect, the notice u/s 271D will not have legs to stand. 4. The Addl CIT ought to have considered the submissions made by the assesse that " amount is taken from family members or paid to family members" being genuine and bonafide in as much as they are reflected in the books of accounts

SHRI. VARADARAJAN NARAYAN AIYAR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

u/s 271D of the Act was passed subsequently on 28.01.2022. Therefore, penalty order was passed on the deceased person. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty order by holding that the penalty proceedings were initiated when the assessee was alive and the objections to the notice for the penalty initiated was filed by the assessee himself. 8. As per section