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

u/s 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 23. Ground No.5 23.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s. 271

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

u/s 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 23. Ground No.5 23.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s. 271

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

u/s 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect of this order. 23. Ground No.5 23.1 In this ground (supra), the assessee challenges the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 r.w.s. 271

VASANTHA NAGARAJ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(7), BANGALORE

In the result, the quantum appeal is partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao(Smc)

section 271(1)c ) of the Act being not applicable, the penalty levied s to be cancelled. 3 ITA No.1180 & 1181(B)/14 6. In any case and without prejudice the learned AO has erred in levying penalty at the minimum rate (300%) and the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. The penalty as levied/sustained being erroneous

SRI. GOVINDACHARY vs. D.C.I.T,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

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

271(1)(c) in this case, on the basis of the appellant’s submissions. This is clearly in the knowledge of the appellant and subsequently, after having taken the stand that penalty should not be levied on account of his voluntary acceptance to the additions made for which ‘no appeal has been filed’ and after exhausting the time for levying

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

234B and 234C of the Act. After appropriation of the payment, a net demand of Rs. 10,40,51,465/- was made, which included interest under Section 234D of the Act 2.5 While doing so, the assessing officer has initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and issued a show cause notice. However, on account

SYNOPSYS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Relief The appellant prays that the JDIT be directed to grant all such relief arising form the preceding grounds as also all relief consequential thereto.” 4. The grounds raised at S.Nos.1, 2, and 6, being general in nature, and not being urged before us, are dismissed as infructuous

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

234B , initiated 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 etc, the assessee filed

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

234B of the Act; 30. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act Erred in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act; The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

M/S STERLING COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result this ground raised by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1220(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Sterling Commerce Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., (Successor In Interest To Telelogic India Pvt.Ltd) C/O Ibm India Pvt.Ltd,, Iii Floor, Subramanya Arcade, 12, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore-560 029 Pan No.Aabct3727D/Ta-158 Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(4) Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit

234B of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,049,088. 13 Interest under section 234D of the Act. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs 173,600 where no refund has been issued to the Appellant. 14 Penalty under section 271(1)(C) The learned AO has erred in initiating

M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B.V. INDIA BRANCH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2572/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, Mahatma Gandhi International Taxation, Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 31.12.2015 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. —India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant'), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Learned Ao') Dated October 15, 2019 Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 23, 2019 Issued By The Drp U/S 144C(5) Of The Act ('The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds:

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) along with draft assessment order and thereby making the same as final order and thus, not following the provisions of section 144C of the Act and hence, the order passed by the learned AO is bad in law and merits to be quashed. Additions made on the basis of the Form 26AS

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2579/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Subex Ltd., The Deputy Rmz Ecoworld, Commissioner Of Outer Ring Road, Income Tax, Devarabisanahalli, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore – 560 103. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Erroneous Transfer Pricing Adjustments Arising From Interest On Trade Receivables 1.1. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 6(1)(2), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer' Or 'Ld. Ao') / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Circle - 1(3)(1) ('Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld.

234B of the Act. The Hon'ble DRP has erred in not adjudicating this ground of objection raised by the Appellant before it. 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 6.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under

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

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

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

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

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

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

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