CHIGURUVADA DILEEPKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

9). The assessment order was passed on 17.09.2022 by making total additions in the hands of the assessee as under: Nature of Additions made Amount (INR) Disallowance of deductions 29,53,200/- claimed u/s. 80E Disallowance of exemption 2,28,166/- claimed u/s. 10(13A) Total Additions 31,81,366/- The assessee accepted the additions made and the payment

CHIGURUVADA DILEEP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

9). The assessment order was passed on 17.09.2022 by making total additions in the hands of the assessee as under: Nature of Additions made Amount (INR) Disallowance of deductions 29,53,200/- claimed u/s. 80E Disallowance of exemption 2,28,166/- claimed u/s. 10(13A) Total Additions 31,81,366/- The assessee accepted the additions made and the payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The AO has passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2019 by making two disallowances in the assessment order viz. (a) Disallowance of Depreciation amounting to Rs. 7,53,66,656/- and (b) disallowance of loss on sale of vehicles amounting to Rs.1

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance of deduction of Health & education cess u/s 37 of the Act was considered under reported is in consequence of misreporting of income under section 270A(2) rws 270(9

M/S. WINDSOR GARDENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowances under section 14A of the Act. This by no stretch of imagination can be held to be 'misreporting'. 8. This Court also finds that there is not even a whisper as to which limb of section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of sub-section (9

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1) , MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Soundararajan K.\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2017-18 To\N2020-21\Nm/S. Bharat Beedi Works\Nprivate Limited,\Ngolden Jubilee Building,\Nbharath Bagh,\Nkadri Road,\Nmangaluru – 575 002.\Npan: Aaacb9001B\Nappellant\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\N: Shri Chythanya .K, Sr.\Nadvocate\N: Shri E. Shridhar, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Norder\Nper Bench\Nthese Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Orders Of\Nthe Ld.Cit(A) -2, Panaji Dated 30/01/2024 In Respect Of The A.Ys.2017-18,\N2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee For\Neach Of The Assessment Years Are Extracted Hereunder For The Sack Of\Nconvenience.\Npage 2 Of 74\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year 2017-18:\N“1. The Impugned Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are Not\Njustified In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The\Ncase.\N2. The Impugned Assessment Proceedings & The\Nimpugned Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated\N29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est Since The Notice Under\Nsection 143(2) Dated 13.08.2018 Was Issued Without\Naffixing Any Signature Either Manually Or Digitally.\N3. Without Prejudice To The Above, Impugned Assessment\Nproceedings & The Impugned Assessment Order Under\Nsection 143(3) Dated 29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est\Nbeing Based On The Notice Under Section 143(2) Dated\N13.08.2018 Which Is Vague, Without Of Application Of Mind\Nand Contrary To Section 143(2) & Applicable Board\Ncirculars & Instructions.\N4. As Regards Disallowance Under Section 14A U/S Rule\N8D(2)(Ii):\N4.

9. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat the disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn\nexempted income has to be a smaller part of exempt\nincome and should be a reasonable proportion to exempted\nincome earned by the assessee in that year.\n15. 10. The Lower Authorities have failed to appreciate\nthat no disallowance under Section

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied on judicial precedents, including Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied on judicial precedents, including Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied on judicial precedents, including Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied on judicial precedents, including Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied on judicial precedents, including Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 18.5 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 270A is not automatic; the word used in the statute is “may” and the AO is required to exercise discretion judiciously. The assessee relied on judicial precedents, including Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

M/S. VISTAAR FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowance let alone under-reporting or misreporting. M/s. Vistaar Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore 13.3. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the case of denial of deduction claimed under section 80G does not fall within the scope of section 270A (8) r.w.s. 270A(9

SEKHON JAGTAR SINGH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2017-18

disallowance of ₹ 74,951/-under section 24 of the Act representing the excessive interest claimed by the assessee. As per the AO, the income assessed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act represents the underreporting of income in pursuance to the provisions of section 270A(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO proposed to levy the penalty under section

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

9 of 12 (b)where the total income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order is a loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as if it were the total income; (c)in any other case, determined in accordance with the formula

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

disallowing the said expense without giving cognizance to the facts of the Appellant and the various judicial precedents relied on by the Appellant. 7.4. The Hon'ble DRP has erred on facts and in law in holding that ESOP/ Employee Share Based Plan (`ESBP') expense does not satisfy conditions of section

AKSHATA VISHWAS TUDAVEKAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 270A had no application to the facts and circumstances of the case and ought to have appreciated that the levy of penalty under consideration wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 4. The NFAC failed to appreciate that the order imposing penalty was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction

MR. SRIDHAR MURTHY S,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sridhar Murthy S Vs The Income Tax Officer Karle Zenith, 100 Ft Kemapura Nfac, Delhi Main Road, Kasaba Holbli Nagavara Village Bengaluru 560043 Pan – Awzps8682D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Rama Raju, Ca Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Nfac, Delhi/Cit(A)’S Order Dated 28.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) , Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities On Facts & Circumstances Of Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.2,19,796/- Under The Provisions Of Section 270A Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

9. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in not appreciating that - learned Assessing Officer erred in law in invoking the provisions of section 270A of the Act, dehors the Appellant admittedly falling under the exceptions to provisions of section 270A of the Act as enumerated under the provisions of section 270A(6) of the Act under the facts

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 270A of the Income Tax Act. As this matter is premature at this stage, it is dismissed accordingly as infructuous. 5. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in Grounds Nos. 4 to 13 of its appeal pertains to the action of the learned DRP/TPO/AO in benchmarking the payment of royalty at NIL. 6. The facts in brief