SHRI S KRISHNA PRASAD ,BALLARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

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

271(1)(c). In Row 6, against the expression “Section under which order appealed against was passed”, Ld CIT(A) has mentioned “Order u/s 271AAB of the I.T Act, 1961. 24. Thus, we notice that both the tax authorities are not clear about the charge for which the penalty was imposed. An identical issue was considered by the Chennai bench

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

271(1)(c) as order passed has been barred by limitation u/s 275. The assessee during the appellate proceedings submitted that Proviso (b) of Sec.275 (1A) and sec.275(1)(a) prohibit passing an order imposing the penalty after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the order of the ITAT is received

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

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 of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

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

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 of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

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

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 of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

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

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 of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

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

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 of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

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

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 of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

HARSHAVARDHAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all 13 appeals of the assessee are allowed

271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.–– For the purposes of this section,–– (a) “specified date means

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

Section 275(1)(c) reads as under: “275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed… (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from

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

Section 275(1)(c) reads as under: “275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed… (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from

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

271(1)(c)) and under-reporting of income (u/s 270A). The penalty orders were passed after the stipulated time limit under Section 275

M/S SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNUR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBBALI

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty order could have only been passed on or before 31st August, 2013 and since the order imposing penalty u/s.271C was passed on 25.7.2016, the penalty order was barred by limitation. 7. The AO rejected the plea of existence of reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source and also rejected

M/S SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty order could have only been passed on or before 31st August, 2013 and since the order imposing penalty u/s.271C was passed on 25.7.2016, the penalty order was barred by limitation. 7. The AO rejected the plea of existence of reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source and also rejected

M/S SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , RANEBENNURU

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty order could have only been passed on or before 31st August, 2013 and since the order imposing penalty u/s.271C was passed on 25.7.2016, the penalty order was barred by limitation. 7. The AO rejected the plea of existence of reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source and also rejected

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

Section 275(1)(c) reads as under:\n“275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be\npassed...\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the\nproceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been\ninitiated, are completed, or six months from

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

Section 275(1)(c) reads as under:\n“275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be\npassed...\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the\nproceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been\ninitiated, are completed, or six months from

SMT. PRAMEELA KRISHNA,MYSORE vs. ITO, MYSORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals for asst

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act. 5. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have e appreciated that the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear the penalty is not sustainable. ITA No.538-540/B/16 3 6. The provisions of explanation

SRI. MUTHAIAH SANNASURAYYA,DAVANGERE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 143(3) dated 26/03/2013, was itself filed with a delay of 125 days. This fact is not mentioned in the affidavit, even though it was stated in para 5 that the Income Tax Practitioner ("HP"), Shri Sudhindra appeared on behalf of the appellant during the assessment proceedings before the AO. In addition, the fact that same ITP also appeared