BIOCON LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act in the absence of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act in the absence of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice

GOPALIYENGAR MADABUSHI MURALIDHAR, ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

carry forward of losses is required to be granted. 4. Initiation of penalty proceedings 4.1. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3 Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar 5. Other grounds: 5.1. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in levying interest under section 234B and 234C

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013-\n14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the\nimpugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant\n assessment years under consideration.\n8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion\nthat the delay in filing the appeal

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c) and 271AAB of the act for A.Ys. 2013-\n14 & 2015-16 to 2018-19 which has been reproduced in the\nimpugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the relevant\n assessment years under consideration.\n8. Based on these submissions, the Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion\nthat the delay in filing the appeal

CISCO SYSTEMS CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 92CA by the TPO vide order 14,59,70,160 dated 22.10.2019 Adjustment as per DRP order 14,78,43,560 Addition in adjustment consequent to Order of DRP 18,73,400 4. Thus, an addition of Rs.14,78,43,56/- was made to the income of the assessee. Against this, the assessee is in appeal before

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss in current year to be carried forward is reflected as NIL. 6.2 The learned AO erred in not considering the fact that during the year under consideration, the books profits of GSSPL and corresponding tax liability under section 115JB of the Act amounts to INR 729 and INR 73, respectively. 6.3 However, in the computation sheet annexed

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. 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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal independently without prejudice to one another and craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.2 It may also be noted that wherever certain figures are recorded pertains