SHANTARAJ P POLA ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

271 read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 2047 to 2050/Bang/2017 Page 6 of 14 10. The AO has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing

SHANTARAJ P POLA ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

271 read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA Nos. 2047 to 2050/Bang/2017 Page 6 of 14 10. The AO has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing

MARIS CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HULIYAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, TUMKUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

Section 271(1)(c) get attracted in case of ITA 1672 OF 2019 MARIS CEMENTS PVT. LTD., HULIYAR Page 6 of 12 the respondent assessee. On due consideration of the submissions of both sides and on examining the orders of all the authorities, we find no reason to interfere in this appeal in as much as both the authorities namely

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD , GURGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

penalty proceedings initiated under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Relief 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto. 5. Ground Nos.1,2 and 9 (supra

KOOUD SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

271(1)(a) cannot he imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHICKBALLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- TDS - CIRCLE - 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

206 of the Act read with rule 37 of the IT Rules. There was a survey operations u/s 133A on 26/12/2013 and the revenue found that the assessee bank has not deducted TDS on leave travel concession (LTC) paid to employees and hence the assessee was treated as ‘assessee in default’ within the meaning of section

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- TDS - CIRCLE-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

206 of the Act read with rule 37 of the IT Rules. There was a survey operations u/s 133A on 26/12/2013 and the revenue found that the assessee bank has not deducted TDS on leave travel concession (LTC) paid to employees and hence the assessee was treated as ‘assessee in default’ within the meaning of section

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- TDS - CIRCLE - 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

206 of the Act read with rule 37 of the IT Rules. There was a survey operations u/s 133A on 26/12/2013 and the revenue found that the assessee bank has not deducted TDS on leave travel concession (LTC) paid to employees and hence the assessee was treated as ‘assessee in default’ within the meaning of section

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- TDS -CIRCLE - 3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

206 of the Act read with rule 37 of the IT Rules. There was a survey operations u/s 133A on 26/12/2013 and the revenue found that the assessee bank has not deducted TDS on leave travel concession (LTC) paid to employees and hence the assessee was treated as ‘assessee in default’ within the meaning of section

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- TDS -RANGE - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

206 of the Act read with rule 37 of the IT Rules. There was a survey operations u/s 133A on 26/12/2013 and the revenue found that the assessee bank has not deducted TDS on leave travel concession (LTC) paid to employees and hence the assessee was treated as ‘assessee in default’ within the meaning of section

ARM EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

206,532 u/s 234A, INR 36,799,226 u/s 234B and INR 4,086 u/s 234C of the Act while computing the tax payable. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in serving notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and initiating penalty

M/S. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

271(1) (c ) wherein, Hon’ble High Court held that, additional evidences were filed by assessee, six years after assessment and assessee did not substantiate delay with a reasonable cause. 2.3.4. On careful reading of decisions relied on by Ld.CIT DR, it is clear that facts in each case, are different. In these decisions, additional evidences were in support

M/S LAM RESEARCH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2702/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Acusis Software India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 17/2, Dollars Chamber, Income Tax, Lalbagh Road, Circle – 1(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 027. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aadca2415P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order 12.10.2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Revised & Modified Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Acusis Software India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Appellant). Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Learned Ao'] Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 ('The Act') On The Following Grounds:

section 133(6) of the Act to obtain information which is not available in public domain and relying on the same for comparability purporses: 4. The learned AO/ TPO erred. in law and in facts. by not applying upper turnover filter as a comparability criterion: 5. The learned AO/ TPO erred, in law and in facts. by rejecting the following

TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. The assessee has filed additional grounds as follows:- “4. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have held the reassessment order as invalid for the reasons that a) neither the reasons recorded nor the reassessment order satisfy the pre-requisite of mentioning about failure of the assessee to disclose