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(1)(c) of the Act. Since no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by the AO in the impugned order

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(1)(c) of the Act. Since no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by the AO in the impugned order

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(1)(c) of the Act. Since no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by the AO in the impugned order

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(1)(c) of the Act. Since no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied by the AO in the impugned order

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

234B of the Act. 15. The learned AO has erred, in initiating penalty proceedings under section 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 AO, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal

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

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SWISS RESHARED SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Swiss Re Global Business Solution India Pvt. Ltd. (Previously Known As Swiss Re The Deputy Shared Services India Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner Of 2Nd To 5Th Floor, Fairwinds Income Tax, Building, Embassy Golf Links Circle – 6(1)(2), Business Park, Challaghatta Vs. Bangalore. Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs8786L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 438/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 (By Revenue) : Shri Nageswar Rao, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Revenue By Meena, Cit Dr (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 23-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 -12-2021 Order Per Bench Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal.

section 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively. 14. The learned AO erred, in law and in facts, in initiating 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

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

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

penalty proceedings under section 271 of the Act. 11. Other grounds 11.1. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in levying interest of INR 409,68,25,501 under section 234B of the Act. 11.2. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in not granting credit for foreign taxes paid by the Appellant

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

GOPALIYENGAR MADABUSHI MURALIDHAR, ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3 Gopaliyengar Madabushi Muralidhar 5. Other grounds: 5.1. The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in levying interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. The interest so levied, being erroneous, is required to be deleted. 5.2. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

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

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

3 (3.1 to 3.7) is dismissed. 6. Charging of interest under section 234B of the Act. 6.1 The ground raised at S.No.4 relates to the charging of interest u/s.234B of the Act. It is the assessee's submission that it is a non-resident under section 195 of the Act, there is an obligation placed upon the payer

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

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

3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal pertain to the initiation of 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

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

3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal pertain to the initiation of 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

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

3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal pertain to the initiation of 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

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

3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal pertain to the initiation of 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