BASAVARAJ LAXMANAGOUDA BIRADAR,VIJAYAPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIJAYAPURA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

80,91,500/- Basavaraj Laxmanagouda Biradar, Vijayapura Page 6 of 10 considered as concealment within the meaning of section 271(1)(c). Hence, this is a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The minimum penalty (100%) leviable U/s

RAHIL MAHESHKUMAR NIZAMUDDIN,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, INTL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2), BLR, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15 by levying a penalty of Rs. 96,41,529/- being the amount of penalty levied by concluding that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed his income. Rahil Maheshkumar Nizamuddin, Bangalore Page 5 of 24 2.7 At the outset, the ld. A.R. submitted that

M/S. SYNDICATE BANK STAFF CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

271 of the Act. Even during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant has not filed any valid, reasonable and cogent reason for not filing his return of income, even though the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act explicitly required him to file his Return of Income within the stipulated time. The penalty levied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

80 pages containing various documents filed/produced before the Authorities below. 7. Before us, the ld. CIT-D.R. Ms. Neera Malhotra fervently submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC wrongly interpreted sub section (9) of section 270A of the Act in holding that 270A(9) of the Act suggests a willful negligence or a misreporting of income which was made

HUBLI SARAKU SAGANIKEDRARA SAHAKARI PATTINA SANGHA NIYAMITA,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for both these years

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 80 P (2) (a) (i) as assessee failed to produce the details but allowed the cost of funds. iv. The learned assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271

HUBLI SARAKU SAGANIKEDARARA SAHAKARI PATTINA SANGHA NIYAMITA,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1), HUBLI, HUBLI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for both these years

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 80 P (2) (a) (i) as assessee failed to produce the details but allowed the cost of funds. iv. The learned assessing officer initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271

VIJAYARANGAM RANGANATH PRAVHAKAR,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

271-D of the Act in as much as the advance for sale of land was received prior to the introduction of the amendment u/s 269SS of the Act and further that the provisions of Section 271D of the Act do not stand attracted to transactions undertaken between the Individual and HUF and thus, the learned Assessment Unit, Income

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

section 153A\nwould cover the pending return\n6. Assessment u/s 143(3)\ncompleted.\nSince regular assessment\nproceedings have been completed &\nare not pending, there would be no\nabatement of proceedings.\nAO loses jurisdiction to review the\ncompleted assessment.\nAccordingly, the scope of\nassessment u/s 153A would be\nrestricted to incriminating material\nfound during the course of search.\n7. Proceedings u/s

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

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 of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. 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

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 of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

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

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 of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

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

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 of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

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

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 of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

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

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 of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

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

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 of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

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

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 of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

BIOAGILE THERAPEUTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2018-19

80 IAC of the Act. However, during the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessee by realizing the fact “that finally in 2019 the recognition granted to the Assessee has been rejected by the appropriate authority and certificate of recognition is withdrawn”, withdrew its claim lodged u/s. 80IAC of the Act and therefore has claimed that no penalty can be levied / leviable

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and section 271F of the Act. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves for leave to add. amend, vary, omit or substitute or withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds at any time before or at the time of hearing of the matter with the Income Tax Appellate