M. VEERABHADRAIAH,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for A

26 (Bang) dt.22.2.2013 for Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 and it was therein held that there can be no justification for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee on the income offered in the return of income for the concerned assessment

M/S TURBOTECH PRECISION ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-(7)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2013-14

section 36(1)(iii) under the claim that the borrowed funds where advanced by the Appellant to its wholly owned subsidiaries as the interest free funds. 9. The Ld. AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the borrowed funds where directed towards wholly owned subsidiaries of the Appellant as a measure of commercial expediency. The Appellant seeks your leave

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 234E for belatedly filing the TDS return. The Act has been amended from 01/06/2015 and prior to this period, levy of fee was in the statute book, therefore, the assessee is not ITA Nos.882-890/Bang/2023 Page 11 of 17 liable for the period till 01/06/2015 and the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI CGANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

SRI.RATAN BABULAL LATH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared

M/S.GOLFLINKS SOFTWARE PARK (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated.” 41. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee submitted that while computing book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act, a sum of Rs.9,64,74,211 debited in the P& L a/c as impairment of capital advances and that cannot be added to the profit as per profit and loss account prepared