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

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

penalty initiation. These instructions do not\nshow non-application of mind; rather, they are an additional layer of\nverification meant to ensure correctness and completeness of the\nassessment. The learned DR emphasised that such directions are routine\nand reflect due diligence and not mechanical approval.\n\n18.4 The learned DR also clarified that the issuance of approval letters\nand assessment

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. RAMCHANDRA NAVEEN, BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the learned\nCIT(A)

163 taxmann.com 666 held at para (13.5) as under :-\n\"13.50 The ratio that emerges from the aforesaid decisions is that a sworn statement\ncannot be relied upon for making any addition and must be corroborated by independent\nevidence for the purposes of making assessments.\nThe Hon'ble ITAT has also relied upon the decisions cited above while making

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. RAMCHANDRA NAVEEN, BANGALORE

In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the Order of the learned\nCIT(A)

163 taxmann.com 666 held at para (13.5) as under :-\n\"13.50 The ratio that emerges from the aforesaid decisions is that a sworn statement\ncannot be relied upon for making any addition and must be corroborated by independent\nevidence for the purposes of making assessments.\n\nThe Hon'ble ITAT has also relied upon the decisions cited above while making

M/S. SHINDENGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Shindengen India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 283/2, Bommasandra, The Deputy Jigani Link Road, Commissioner Of Jigani Industrial Area, Income Tax, Anekal Taluk, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 105. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aarcs8947E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Shashi M Kapila, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-02-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The Ld AO erred in not allowing set off of current year losses and brought forward losses amounting to Rs. 4,98,73,540 and Rs. 4,59,11,799 aggregating to Rs. 9,57,85,339 Page 3 IT(TP)A No. 2514/Bang/2019 The Appellant craves leave

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

271 (Delhi - Trib.) (para 20) {CLI 2 Pg.\n629}.\n4.11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

271 (Delhi - Trib.) (para 20) {CLI 2 – Pg.\n629}.\n\n4. 11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary

EMC SOFTWARE AND SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms mentioned above

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271(1)(c) of the Act and IT(TP)A No.191/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 61 initiating penalty proceedings for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. That the Appellant craves leave to add to and/or to alter, amend, rescind, modify the grounds herein below or produce further documents before or at the time of hearing

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

penalty initiation. These instructions do not\nshow non-application of mind; rather, they are an additional layer of\nverification meant to ensure correctness and completeness of the\nassessment. The learned DR emphasised that such directions are routine\nand reflect due diligence and not mechanical approval.\n18.4 The learned DR also clarified that the issuance of approval letters\nand assessment orders