DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1) , BANGALORE vs. MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES-VST DIESEL ENGINES PRIVATE LIMITED, MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

58,897/- by way of disallowance of excess brought forward losses/unabsorbed depreciation, the Assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the I. Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income on or before the completion of the Assessment Proceedings. 16. Further, The Learned JCIT, Circle 4(1)(2), Bangalore based on the fact that

SRI SURYANARAYANA GNANESHWARA RAO ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member Ita No.3274(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Suryanarayana Gnaneshwara Rao, No.83, Nisa Enclave, Mm Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore-560 005 Panno.Aempr9001C Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Jinita Chatterjee, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Praveen Karanth, Addl. Cit

271(1)(c ) of the Act. vi. Without prejudice, the penalty as levied is arbitrary, excessive, unsustainable and liable to be deleted. vii. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed”. 3 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee

SRI. PATIL KADPAKAL GARJAN,,SHIMOGA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

58,15,566 subject to the request that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be initiated. The Assessing Officer accepted the said request of the assessee and accordingly 9 framed the assessment however in the assessment order itself the Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings in para 5 as under : “5. Penalty Proceedings

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of I. T. Act for A. Y. 2006 – 07 and remaining two appeals are also cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue in quantum proceedings for the same year i.e. A. Y. 2006 – 07. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience

M/S MANN & HUMMEL FILTER PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2010-11

u/s. 274 of the Act the charge is furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income whereas the order imposing penalty the charge and finding is that the Assessee has concealed particulars of income, should not be accepted. According to him, the purpose of show cause notice is only to afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. His further submission

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

271(1)(c), it is legally required on the part of the AO to record a satisfaction whether the proposed penalty is for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. ii. As per Section 148, there is no requirement that he has to record a finding specifically whether proceedings u/s 147 are initiated

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

58,180\n17,16,55,115\n33,97,88,690\nNA\nDetails of undisclosed income declared\nbogus expenses\n1,07,76,926\n2,23,19,384\n2,07,19,771\n2,59,74,970\n1,10,65,726\n1,12,08,242\nNA\nand promotion\nexpenses

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

u/s 143 (3) r.w.s 144C as per the directions of DRP. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee along with modified grounds no. 16 and 25 are as under:- Page 2 of 20 IT(TP)A No. 830/Bang/2017 “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Inteva Products India Automotive Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant') respectfully

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

58,78,782 Add: Interest u/s 234B 10,00,000 Total 48,78,782 Add: Refund issued u/s 143(1) 11,20,000 Add: Interest u/s 234B 1,73,600 Total Balance Payable 82,21,470 Ld.AR further submitted that assessing officer while passing final assessment order did not granted working capital adjustment even after the directions

M/S PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

58,175,493 instead of INR 60,847,909 as claimed by the Appellant. 15. Short credit of advance tax The learned AO erred in giving credit of advance tax of INR 9,50,00,000 instead of INR 9,85,00,000 as claimed by the Appellant. 16. Penalty proceedings under section 271

M/S. PRAXAIR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

58,175,493 instead of INR 60,847,909 as claimed by the Appellant. 15. Short credit of advance tax The learned AO erred in giving credit of advance tax of INR 9,50,00,000 instead of INR 9,85,00,000 as claimed by the Appellant. 16. Penalty proceedings under section 271

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

58,06,480. 27. Erred in imposing the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 126 28. Erred in initiating the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant

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

58,06,480. 27. Erred in imposing the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 126 28. Erred in initiating the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant

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

58,06,480. 27. Erred in imposing the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 126 28. Erred in initiating the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant

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

58,06,480. 27. Erred in imposing the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. ` IT(TP)A No.68 & 205/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.559 & 881/Bang/2016 IT(TP)A 387 & 2890/Bang/2017 IT(TP)A 3430/Bang/2018 IT(TP)A 2301/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 126 28. Erred in initiating the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant