DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1) , BANGALORE vs. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES-VST DIESEL ENGINES PRIVATE LIMITED, MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

154 by the ITO Ward 13/3/2019 4(1)(3) granting credit of additional taxes paid It is also the Contention of the assessee-appellant that the subject order giving effect to the MAP Resolution for AY 2012-13 was passed by the Ld. AO in its case on 10.05.2018 and by then the statutory time limit for filing the revised

M/S HUBLI DHARWAD STOCK TRADING HOUSE ,HUBLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 1997-98,

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the aforesaid six assessment years. 2.2 In these appeals, the assessee has raised the following grounds : Ground No: 4 - 3.1 In this ground (Supra), the sum and substance of the assessee’s contentions are that the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO for asst. years

RAICHUR CITY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. DIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Laliet Kumarraichur City Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Gunj Road, Raichur-584 102. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.A Respondent By : Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel

154 or] section 250, direct the [Assessing] Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the order. [(2A) The [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner may, if he objects to any direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel under sub-section (5) of section 144C in respect of any objection filed on or after the 1st day of July

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

154 and for\nA.Y. 2018-19, the appeal was filed against order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s\n153D.\nII) Penalty appeals for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2015-16 to 2018-19:\nThe penalty orders were passed by the Ld.AO u/s. 274 r.w.s.\n271(1)(c) of the act for A.Y. 2013-14 and 2015-16 to 2016-17.\nFurther

SHRI RAJESH AJJAVARA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

271 F of the Act nowhere mentions that for levying :- 5 -: ITA Nos.2604 to 2606/Bang/2018 & penalty under this section, there should be willful and deliberate omissions on the part of the assessee. Besides, filing of return as per Section 139(4) would not dilute infraction of not furnishing the return of income before the end of the relevant assessment year

SHRI RAJESH AJJAVARA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

271 F of the Act nowhere mentions that for levying :- 5 -: ITA Nos.2604 to 2606/Bang/2018 & penalty under this section, there should be willful and deliberate omissions on the part of the assessee. Besides, filing of return as per Section 139(4) would not dilute infraction of not furnishing the return of income before the end of the relevant assessment year

SHRI RAJESH AJJAVARA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

271 F of the Act nowhere mentions that for levying :- 5 -: ITA Nos.2604 to 2606/Bang/2018 & penalty under this section, there should be willful and deliberate omissions on the part of the assessee. Besides, filing of return as per Section 139(4) would not dilute infraction of not furnishing the return of income before the end of the relevant assessment year

SHRI RAJESH AJJAVARA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

271 F of the Act nowhere mentions that for levying :- 5 -: ITA Nos.2604 to 2606/Bang/2018 & penalty under this section, there should be willful and deliberate omissions on the part of the assessee. Besides, filing of return as per Section 139(4) would not dilute infraction of not furnishing the return of income before the end of the relevant assessment year

SRI SURESH CHIKKAJALA RAMAKRISHNAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

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

u/s. 271[1][c] of the Act in respect of the additions made in course of the assessment proceedings that were accepted by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars in respect

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

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

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

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

154 of the Act. It was pleaded that on account of bonafide mistake, assessee has not filed the appeal. In our opinion, delay could be condoned only for sufficient and good reason supported by the cogent and proper evidence. In the present case, there is an inordinate delay of 1694 days. A distinction must be made between a case where

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

154 of the Act. It was pleaded that on account of bonafide mistake, assessee has not filed the appeal. In our opinion, delay could be condoned only for sufficient and good reason supported by the cogent and proper evidence. In the present case, there is an inordinate delay of 1694 days. A distinction must be made between a case where

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

154 of the Act. It was pleaded that on account of bonafide mistake, assessee has not filed the appeal. In our opinion, delay could be condoned only for sufficient and good reason supported by the cogent and proper evidence. In the present case, there is an inordinate delay of 1694 days. A distinction must be made between a case where

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

154 of the Act. It was pleaded that on account of bonafide mistake, assessee has not filed the appeal. In our opinion, delay could be condoned only for sufficient and good reason supported by the cogent and proper evidence. In the present case, there is an inordinate delay of 1694 days. A distinction must be made between a case where

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

154 of the Act. It was pleaded that on account of bonafide mistake, assessee has not filed the appeal. In our opinion, delay could be condoned only for sufficient and good reason supported by the cogent and proper evidence. In the present case, there is an inordinate delay of 1694 days. A distinction must be made between a case where

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

154 of the Act. It was pleaded that on account of bonafide mistake, assessee has not filed the appeal. In our opinion, delay could be condoned only for sufficient and good reason supported by the cogent and proper evidence. In the present case, there is an inordinate delay of 1694 days. A distinction must be made between a case where