SIMPLEX TMC PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Capital Gains. The AO further held that as the assessee had not offered the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as income, the undisclosed income is covered by provision of clause(b) Simplex TMC Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 17 of Section 271AAB(1A) of the Act and accordingly a penalty

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

ROOPA JAGADISH ,MYSURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to further add, alter or amend each one of the above grounds of appeal” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 6. The learned AO is also not justified in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Page 3 of 12 7. The grounds are taken without prejudice to one another and the Appellant craves leave to add or delete or modify or revise any ground

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

capital gains in the return of income voluntarily filed for the year under appeal under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The levy of penalty u/s 271

THE BEML EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITEDIETY ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 24.7.2021 passed by ld. AO. Since the issue in both the appeals is common, these are heard analogously and are disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No.762/Bang/2023 (AY 2012-13): 2. This appeal is time barred by 14 days. The assessee has filed

THE BEML EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITIED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 24.7.2021 passed by ld. AO. Since the issue in both the appeals is common, these are heard analogously and are disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. ITA No.762/Bang/2023 (AY 2012-13): 2. This appeal is time barred by 14 days. The assessee has filed

MAHESHWARAPPA MUNIRAMU,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

u/s 269SS of the Act and accepted his share of sale consideration of Rs.10 lakhs in cash. This bonafide belief clearly established from the fact that the assessee had deposited the cash received on sale of immovable property into his bank account maintained with canara bank & thereafter deposited/transferred the same to the bank account opened under the capital gains account

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gains, "India-Ireland DTAA". Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gains, "India-Ireland DTAA". Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gains, "India-Ireland DTAA". Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gains, "India-Ireland DTAA". Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gains, "India-Ireland DTAA". Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gains, "India-Ireland DTAA". Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Gains, "India-Ireland DTAA". Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read