THE SHIMOGA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE,SHIMOGA vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-1, SINDAGI

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

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011-12

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Before the assessing officer, the assessee offered following explanations and accordingly pleaded that the penalty proceedings should be dropped. ITA No.1499 /Bang/2016 Page 3 of 13 “1. We have fully co-operated during the assessment procedures and have submitted all the documents and records for the smooth

M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

penalty proceedings under section 271 of the Act. Page 9 of 21 IT(TP)A Nos. 625/Bang/2017 & 1016/Bang/2019 13. Other grounds 13.1. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in levying interest of INR 364,20,56,993 under section 234B of the Act. 14. Relief 14.1. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant

M/S. IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 4, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 625/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 1016/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Joint No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Special Range-4, Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Revenue By Counsel Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022

penalty proceedings under section 271 of the Act. Page 9 of 21 IT(TP)A Nos. 625/Bang/2017 & 1016/Bang/2019 13. Other grounds 13.1. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in levying interest of INR 364,20,56,993 under section 234B of the Act. 14. Relief 14.1. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant

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

364 disallowed by the Appellant under section 40(a) of the Act should be disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act 4.2. The learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts by not appreciating that the basis of year-end provisions, as furnished by the Appellant, demonstrate that the same are for abilities which have arisen/been incurred

CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(EARLIER KNOWN AS CERNER INDIA HEALTH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED) ( ERSTWHILE CERNER HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act (Ground No.9) Brief facts of the case 4. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of software development and testing services in healthcare solutions. For the assessment year under consideration the assessee filed the return of IT(TP)A No.254/Bang/2021 Page 3 of 14 income on 13/07/2017 declaring

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided for in Section 271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided for in Section 271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases

M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided for in Section 271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, appealsof the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavand Shri. Jason P Boaz

penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided for in Section 271 C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271) 247-258 Head 247 (Supreme Court) note 4. The Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 on 30.11.2019 declaring a loss of Rs.70

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271) 247-258 Head 247 (Supreme Court) note 4. The Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In this case, assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 on 30.11.2019 declaring a loss of Rs.70

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, BANGALORE

364,064,448 towards interest income.\n14.2 The learned AO has erred in not appreciating the facts that\naccounting of interest income in the books of account was in\naccordance with mercantile system of accounting and Accounting\nStandard-9 on Revenue Recognition (AS9)\n15. The learned AO has erred in not granting appropriate credit of tax\ndeducted at source which

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. DCIT,

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

271 4. Sale of Scrap Rs. 24,10,221 5. Misc. receipts from trading Rs. 46,93,290 Miscellaneous receipts: 6. Rental from staff qtrs Rs. 90,06,414 7. Rental from other Rs. 59,692 8. Excess found on physical verification of material stock Rs. 4,03,364 9. Commission for collection of electric duty

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. DCIT,

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

271 4. Sale of Scrap Rs. 24,10,221 5. Misc. receipts from trading Rs. 46,93,290 Miscellaneous receipts: 6. Rental from staff qtrs Rs. 90,06,414 7. Rental from other Rs. 59,692 8. Excess found on physical verification of material stock Rs. 4,03,364 9. Commission for collection of electric duty

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. DCIT,

In the result, this appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

271 4. Sale of Scrap Rs. 24,10,221 5. Misc. receipts from trading Rs. 46,93,290 Miscellaneous receipts: 6. Rental from staff qtrs Rs. 90,06,414 7. Rental from other Rs. 59,692 8. Excess found on physical verification of material stock Rs. 4,03,364 9. Commission for collection of electric duty