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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , BAGALKOT vs. M/S RYTARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITHA , BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed, while the CO is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2010-11

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). In the Cross objection the Assessee has submitted that the penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act has to be quashed on the ground that the show cause notice issued u/s.274 of the Act, before imposing penalty does not specify the exact charge against the Assessee and therefore even

BOMMARABETTU MADHU SUDHANA ACHARYA ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 AND TPS, UDUPI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

271 D was not exigible. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the circumstances that prompted the Appellant to receive on sale of sites cash from buyers and ought to have refrained from levying the penalty 5. On the facts the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the income declared under the head capital gain

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

150\n28,85,46,841\n36,75,25,025\n33,97,88,690\nNote: AY 2018 '19, being the year of search u/s 132, the return of income was filed u/s 139(1)\n10.2 The details of undisclosed income as per the return of\nincome filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 153A, for\nthe

SHRI. RAJNISH GOPINATH,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-1 , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2018-19

271 of the Act there is no immunity granted for reasonable cause and the assessee was unable to prove with any formal agreement to act as an agent for shape keeping and he requested that the penalty should be confirmed. 8. Considering the rival submissions and Orders and persuing the entire materials available on records and the orders

INVTEVA PRODUCTS INDIA AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) ( c) is premature. Accordingly, these grounds are rejected. We have to decide ground Nos. 6,7,11 to 14, 16, 24 to 28 and additional Grounds 31 & 32. He also submitted that in last column of the same Ground wise summary, the arguments of the assessee are noted and these grounds can be decided

M/S ARROW ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.DIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assesssee’s appeals are dismissed, the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross-Objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. S. Jayaraman

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 271B and accordingly issued demand notices. Aggrieved by the finding that the Singapore branch had business connection in India and against the finding that the Singapore Company had a PE in India and determination of 40% of the total profits as attributable to the Indian operations and against the determination of adjustment

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein assessee required to show utmost good faith and must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an appeal. In the absence

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein assessee required to show utmost good faith and must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an appeal. In the absence

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein assessee required to show utmost good faith and must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an appeal. In the absence

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein assessee required to show utmost good faith and must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an appeal. In the absence

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein assessee required to show utmost good faith and must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an appeal. In the absence

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein assessee required to show utmost good faith and must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an appeal. In the absence

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, wherein assessee required to show utmost good faith and must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts. It is needless to say that it is the duty of the assessee to explain the delay for every day that elapses beyond the period allowed by the Act for filing an appeal. In the absence

M/S INFORMATICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RAGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

penalty proceedings under Section 274 read NA Section 271 of the Act. Relief 8 a) The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the above grounds and also all relief NA consequential thereto. b) The Appellant desires leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above

JOHN DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

150/- in its return of income as admitted during the search. From above it is clear case of concealment of income by the assessee and hence penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately. 14.5 With regard to Undisclosed income from transport business the ld. D.R. submitted that during the course of search, a document A/JDPL/12

M/S. THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and also filed a petition for stay of recovery of tax. Subsequently, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld CIT(A), wherein it contended that the impugned assessment order is invalid as the same has been passed IT(TP)A No.2248/Bang/2016 M/.s. The Himalaya Drug Company, Bengaluru Page 14 of 71 in violation

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

150 Taxman 571 (Gau) (viii) Commissioner of Income-tax-V v. Orient Craft Ltd. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 392 (DELHI) Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah, Hospete Page 30 of 58 (ix) Prashant S. Joshi v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(4) [2010] 189 TAXMAN 1 (BOM.) 6. The Ld. D.R. submitted with regard to ground Nos.1 to 6 of the appeal