NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

disallowance of leavy salary provision was detected. Had the same not been selected for scrutiny, the income would not have been assessed to tax. Further non levy of penalty would lead to injustice to the honest taxpayers. Accordingly minimum penalty of Rs.25,29,788 was levied for deliberately furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty order u/s. 271

RAHIL MAHESHKUMAR NIZAMUDDIN,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2), BLR, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

Penalty proceedings were initiated by issuing a notice u/s 274 rws 271(1)(c) dated 29/12/2016 for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Rahil Maheshkumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore Page 3 of 24 2.1 He submitted that the demand of Rs. 9,77,46,662/- had arisen mainly due to the re-computation of Capital gains on sale

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). However, the AO has not brought anything on record to show that the act of the assessee in filing his return of income has been done with malafide intention or willful and deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The facts have been disclosed by the assessee and there was nothing which would point towards

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

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee as Long Term 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

DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. EKA SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Eka Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Building 2A, East Tower, Bengaluru. Vrindavan Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarbeesanhalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru – 575 001. Pan : Aabce 3660 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ajay Rotti, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024

penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act due to the fact that the addition in the assessment proceedings was on an estimation basis. 3. The decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with the Explanation 1 of the section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate

SHRI. ASLAM PASHA,CHIKKABALLAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKABALLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance of losses, the penalty proceedings automatically attracted is correct? 2. The Learned CIT(A) has failed to discuss the circumstances under which the penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer. 3. The penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271

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

disallowed u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Rules and initiated penalty u/s 270A of the Act for the misreporting of income as per sec. 270A(9)(a) of the Act. The assessee did not file appeal against the Page 4 of 10 assessment order and the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A

DCIT-CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI, C.R. BUILDING , NAVANAGAR HUBLI vs. SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR KOMMI, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2015-16

disallowance of Rs.2 lakhs against expenses claimed. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 of the Act against the additional income offered to tax in the return

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

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271

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

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271

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

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271

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

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271

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

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271

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

u/s 153C of the Act included the said additional income, which was accepted by the AO without making any further additions or disallowances. Penalty proceedings were initiated mechanically, despite the fact that the assessment was completed by accepting the returned income. 6.2 Further, the assessee submitted that penalty under section 271

HUBLI SARAKU SAGANIKEDARARA SAHAKARI PATTINA SANGHA NIYAMITA,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for both these years

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 80 P (2) (a) (i) as assessee failed to produce the details but allowed the cost of funds. iv. The learned assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271 (1) (C) of the act by issuing a notice dated 15/12/2016 for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income but passed the penalty order on 20/3/2020 holding that the assessee

HUBLI SARAKU SAGANIKEDRARA SAHAKARI PATTINA SANGHA NIYAMITA,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for both these years

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 80 P (2) (a) (i) as assessee failed to produce the details but allowed the cost of funds. iv. The learned assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271 (1) (C) of the act by issuing a notice dated 15/12/2016 for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income but passed the penalty order on 20/3/2020 holding that the assessee

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

disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. OTHERS 24. Erred in considering the eligible MAT credit u/s 115JAA of the Act at Rs 565,306 as against the eligible brought forward MAT credit of Rs.8,81,87,191. 25. Erred in considering the refund already issued to the Company u/s 143(1) at Rs 9,37,80.480 instead

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

disallowed u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. OTHERS 24. Erred in considering the eligible MAT credit u/s 115JAA of the Act at Rs 565,306 as against the eligible brought forward MAT credit of Rs.8,81,87,191. 25. Erred in considering the refund already issued to the Company u/s 143(1) at Rs 9,37,80.480 instead