IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 270A(9) of the Act, misreporting has been undertaken. 4.4.4 However, the CIT(A) vide its order confirmed the order passed by the AO and upheld the penalty levied upon the Assessee. In respect of the 270A cases, the CIT(A) deleted levy of penalty for ‘misreporting’ but however levied penalty for ‘under-reporting’. 4.4.5 Against the orders passed

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 270A(9) of the Act, misreporting has been undertaken. 4.4.4 However, the CIT(A) vide its order confirmed the order passed by the AO and upheld the penalty levied upon the Assessee. In respect of the 270A cases, the CIT(A) deleted levy of penalty for ‘misreporting’ but however levied penalty for ‘under-reporting’. 4.4.5 Against the orders passed

MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

capital gain is computed at Rs.1,12,15,692/-. The assessee admitted the disallowance made in the assessment order and stated to have make payment of the entire tax liability. The AO was of the opinion that since the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim of expenses of Rs.90,53,431/- with supporting documents in any form and also

SMT. VANI RAMACHANDRAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusmt. Vani Ramachandran Vs The Income Tax Officer-3(2)(1) 40, Vishram, 4Th Main Bmtc Building Kalyan Nagar Koramangala Bangalore 560072 Bangalore 560095 Pan – Ajtpr2276F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravishankar S.V., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Dated 03.11.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds & Also Additional Grounds. However, The Solitary Issue That Was Argued By The Learned A.R. Was Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.25,000/- Imposed Under Section 271A Of The Act.

270A of the Act, the copy of Demat account statement for the relevant period, copy of the approval issued under Section 151 of the Act, copy of reasons recorded, etc. The learned A.R. submitted that as against the addition of Rs.13,93,176/- under Section 69A of the Act, the assessee has filed an appeal and the same is pending

ASIAN EARTH MOVERS,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

section 144B of the Act. 5. The Learned AO erred in computing the capital gain as short-term capital gain without reducing the cost of acquisition and constructing artificial liability to tax. 6. The Learned AO erred in determining the total income at Rs. 67,16,348/- WITHOUT setting off the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation

MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

270A of the Act.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a company engaged in design, development and testing of integrated circuits and provides services to its group companies. For the Assessment 2 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Year 2020-2021, the Assessee had filed its return of income on 07/01/2021 declaring total income of INR.72

M/S. FLIPKART INDIA PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

270A of the Act by Ld. AO. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in failing to delete interest levied under Section 234B of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

270A of the Act by Ld. AO. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in failing to delete interest levied under Section 234B of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers

AUTODESK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

270A of the Act.” 2. The Assessee is engaged in the business of providing marketing, technical support and research and development services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The assessee filed the return of income for assessment year (AY) 2018-19 on 30.11.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.255,636,680. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny

NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ARGON SOUTH TOWER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

270A were also proposed to be initiated on this issue for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof.” 10. Disallowance under section 37 of the Act operates under Chapter IV-D of the Act while computing income under head “Profits and Gains from Business / Profession”. Expenses prescribed under sections

SHRI. KRISHNA SHIVAPRASAD,MANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gains; 7. The Learned Officer has erred in law and on facts in denying the benefit of exemption to agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 84,66,000/- by treating the same as income from other sources; 8. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the nature of activities and circumstances under

MUNISWAMY VENKATASWAMY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

Capital Gains without any application of mind. 7) The Learned Assessing Officer did not give deduction to cost of improvement and other structural activities. 8) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under 274 read with section 272(1)(d) and 270A

BIOCON BIOLOGICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

270A of the Act for underreporting of income.\n10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and\nin law, the Ld. AO has erred in not granting the interest in\naccordance with the provisions of section 244A of the Act.\n11. The Ld. AO has erred, in law and on facts in levying\nexcess interest u/s 234C

M/S. PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

gain as operating in nature for the purpose of computing OP/TC of the Appellant and the OP/TC of the comparable companies remaining in the final set; 6.9. Erred in not providing appropriate adjustments to account for differences in working capital employed by the Appellant vis-a-vis the comparable companies. IT(TP)A No.154/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 28 6.10 Erred

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

270A of the Act. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein below or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing of this Appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 Assessee is a company engaged in the business of rendering software engineering application

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

capital, if not immediately required\nto be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they\ndeposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income\nis attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit\nfacilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate