RAMAKRISHNA MURALI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

271(1)(c) of the Act, period of limitation for passing the penalty order is 6 months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated. As stated above, the initiation has been by notice dated 1.4.2015. The 6 months commence from end of the month i.e. 30.4.2015 and expires on 31.10.2015. The penalty

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee’s as well as Revenue’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boazjoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Ltu), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Texas Instruments, Bagmane Tech Park, No.66/3 Adjacent To Lrde, Byrasandra, C V Raman Nagar Post Bangalore-560093. … Respondent Pan: Aaact5445M

penalty under section 271. Section 251 of the Act deals with the powers of the CIT(A) in disposing of the appeals filed before him/her. Thus, it is clear, that where the CIT(A) had called for details on such direction and the assessee files such details on such direction, it is not incumbent upon the CIT(A) to call

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA ) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDLCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, both the assessee’s as well as Revenue’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P Boazjoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Ltu), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Texas Instruments, Bagmane Tech Park, No.66/3 Adjacent To Lrde, Byrasandra, C V Raman Nagar Post Bangalore-560093. … Respondent Pan: Aaact5445M

penalty under section 271. Section 251 of the Act deals with the powers of the CIT(A) in disposing of the appeals filed before him/her. Thus, it is clear, that where the CIT(A) had called for details on such direction and the assessee files such details on such direction, it is not incumbent upon the CIT(A) to call

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

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

KSHEMA TECHNOLOGIES (SINCE MERGED WITH MPHASIS LTD),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

928,569. 17. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D OF THE ACT The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234D of the Act amounting to Rs. 128.352. 18. PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) The learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to re-compute the penalty in view of the enhanced total

NXP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vii. Ground 16 — Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 6. Ground No. 1 and 2 being general does not warrant separate adjudication. Ground No.14 is not pressed and hence dismissed as not pressed. Ground No.15 & and 16 are consequential. Out of the 8 grounds raised