THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

144B Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 06.10.2023 351 271(1)(b) Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

144B Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 06.10.2023 351 271(1)(b) Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

144B Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 06.10.2023 351 271(1)(b) Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore Page 4 of 23 deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

144B Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 06.10.2023 351 271(1)(b) Penalty u/s 20.09.2022 20.10.2022 01.10.2023 346 271(1)(c) 3.2 He submitted that the assessee has filed condonation petition for quantum proceedings upon receiving deficiency letter and no Page 4 of 23 ITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024 The Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore deficiency letter was received for appeal filed against

SRI. PANATI VIKRAMDEVA REDDY,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144B of the Act. 4. Penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) were also initiated by show cause notice dated 28.03.2022. Another show cause notice dated 26.8.2022 was issued to upload submission as per mandate of Faceless Penalty Scheme and that penalty initiated u/s. 271(1)(b) being a technical penalty it cannot be kept in abeyance, though assessee

SRI. PANATI VIKRAMDEVA REDDY,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

144B of the Act. 4. Penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) were also initiated by show cause notice dated 28.03.2022. Another show cause notice dated 26.8.2022 was issued to upload submission as per mandate of Faceless Penalty Scheme and that penalty initiated u/s. 271(1)(b) being a technical penalty it cannot be kept in abeyance, though assessee

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

144B of the Act on 27.9.2022 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.33,46.36,995. The ld. AO made the disallowance of unpaid amount of provision for leave salary amounting to Rs.81,87,015. Page 3 of 11 6. On this addition, show cause notice was issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

DUSTVEN PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2013-14

144B of the Act. 3. The AO issued notice under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 for concealment of income. The assessee explained that it suffered huge financial losses because of cancellation of coal block allocations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Orders placed on the assessee were cancelled when the systems were already manufactured or in process. The assessee

MURMU PANKAJ KUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as well as u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act on or before the completion of the assessment proceedings. 3.1 Being aggrieved by the Order of the AO dated 22/01/2024 passed u/s 147 read with section 144B

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 30.4.2021. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: GENERAL 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO based on the directions of DRP has assessed the total income of the Appellant at INR 42,23,86,980 as against returned

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”), wherein ld. AO made addition of Rs.94,62,788/-, which is confirmed by ld. AO., who has observed that assessee has not paid the admitted tax u/s 249(4)(b) of the Act. 2.1 The other appeals are relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”), wherein ld. AO made addition of Rs.94,62,788/-, which is confirmed by ld. AO., who has observed that assessee has not paid the admitted tax u/s 249(4)(b) of the Act. 2.1 The other appeals are relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”), wherein ld. AO made addition of Rs.94,62,788/-, which is confirmed by ld. AO., who has observed that assessee has not paid the admitted tax u/s 249(4)(b) of the Act. 2.1 The other appeals are relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271

MR. RAVINDRA KARADAHALLI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”), wherein ld. AO made addition of Rs.94,62,788/-, which is confirmed by ld. AO., who has observed that assessee has not paid the admitted tax u/s 249(4)(b) of the Act. 2.1 The other appeals are relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b), 271

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified in law. 10.Appellant craves leave to add, amend, substitute, alter, modify or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee is a company engaged in the business of development of graphics, media

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act 4.1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in undertaking the best judgement assessment under section 144 of the Act without issuing a show cause notice to the Appellant, to demonstrate why assessment should not be completed to the best of his judgement

MRS. SUREKHA L/R OF LATE SHRI. DEVARAJ ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act") is bad in law in as much as the same is passed in the name of a dead person and hence is non est and void. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the proceedings under section 147 were initiated against a dead person and hence the entire proceedings

NTT DATA INFORMATION PROCESSING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “Grounds:- 1. Impugned order of the learned AO pursuant/ Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) and directions of the Hon’ble DRP are based on incorrect appreciation of facts and incorrect interpretation of law and therefore, are bad in law. 2. Learned