GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order

CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INC.,UNITED STATES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

234B of the Act. 3. Ground 3: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act. All the above grounds are without

CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES INC.,UNITED STATES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

234B of the Act. 3. Ground 3: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act. All the above grounds are without

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.

234B of the Act of INR 59,140,659. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 31. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves, to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves to leave or add, alter

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The learned AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add or delete or modify or revise any ground at the time of hearing before the Hon'ble ITAT. Page 3 of 14 ITA Nos. 1049 & 1050/Bang/2025 For these

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The learned AO erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add or delete or modify or revise any ground at the time of hearing before the Hon'ble ITAT. Page 3 of 14 ITA Nos. 1049 & 1050/Bang/2025 For these

WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

234B of the Act. 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), 271A, 271AA and 271BA of the Act 7.1. The Hon'ble Panel erred in law by upholding the action of the Ld. AO, in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c), 271A, 271AA and 271BA of the Act. 8. Relief 8.1. The Appellant prays that

MRS. SABENA PRAKASH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

234B of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case.\n11. Without prejudice the learned Assessing Officer erred in law in initiating the penalty\nproceedings under the provisions of section 274 read with section 270A of the Act on the\nfacts and circumstances of the case.\n12. The Appellant craves to add, alter, delete or substitute

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. These issues are either premature or consequential in nature which do not require any separate and independent adjudication. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 35. The issue raised in Ground No. 2.1 to 2.7 pertains

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. These issues are either premature or consequential in nature which do not require any separate and independent adjudication. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 35. The issue raised in Ground No. 2.1 to 2.7 pertains

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. These issues are either premature or consequential in nature which do not require any separate and independent adjudication. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 35. The issue raised in Ground No. 2.1 to 2.7 pertains

KASIREDDAY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. These issues are either premature or consequential in nature which do not require any separate and independent adjudication. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 35. The issue raised in Ground No. 2.1 to 2.7 pertains

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. These issues are either premature or consequential in nature which do not require any separate and independent adjudication. Therefore, we dismiss the same as infructuous. 35. The issue raised in Ground No. 2.1 to 2.7 pertains