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

Gain and disallowed to the Assessee the short term capital loss of Rs. 117,76,40,000 in respect of sale of equity shares of Jupiter Capital Private Limited by the Assessee to M/s Vectra Holdings Private Limited.” 20. In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above and the quantum appeal

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

Gain and disallowed to the Assessee the short term capital loss of Rs. 117,76,40,000 in respect of sale of equity shares of Jupiter Capital Private Limited by the Assessee to M/s Vectra Holdings Private Limited.” 20. In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above and the quantum appeal

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

short delay of 4 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit for both the assessment years praying for condonation of delay. It was explained that due to the assessee’s counsel who has prepared the appeal papers was fell sick and it took extra 4 days in filing

SRI ANJANEYALU PRATHIPATHI,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Years: 2012-13

short term capital gains for AY 2012-13 at Rs. 8,74,38,017/- in the order passed u/s. 153C rws 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.01.2016. Along with the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13, the A.O. has also passed the assessment order u/s. 153C rws 143(3) of the Act, dated 29.1.2016 for the assessment year

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

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

Term Capital Gains (LTCG) thereon; apart from declaring income / loss from other heads such as house property, business and other sources. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by order dt.15.12.2008 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.5,45,59,686. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were simultaneously

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

short-term capital loss on sale of securities in terms of Section 94(7) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee had demonstrated that its claims were bonafide claim after making full disclosure. It was also noticed that there were no specific

MS.DIVYA S RAO ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c), and u/s 271(1)(b) and 271E of the Act for assessment year 2008-09 Page 2 of 13 ITA No.2384 to 2387/Bang/2018 “1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant, are opposed to Law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. 2. Facts of the case are that the A.O. made addition of Rs.2.06 crores as long term capital gain arising from sale of land situated at Survey No.40, Chikkanahalli Kammanahalli, Sarjapur hobli, Anekal

ROOPA JAGADISH ,MYSURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MYSURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

short term capital gain of Rs.34,60,575/- by adopting the 'cost of construction' at Rs.951/- per sq ft as against the cost of Rs.1,790/- considered y the Appellant. 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Ld AO adopting the cost of Rs.951/- per sq ft as determined in the order passed

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

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

short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “The order of the authorities below in so far as levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The order levying penalty u/s.271

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOWORTH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Act is initiated separately.[Addition Rs.33,00,000/-]” 2.2 Accordingly he added into the total income of the assessee the entire payments made to these two companies of Rs.33.00/- crores. 2.3 During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has purchased shares of Kemwell Infrastructure

SRI SURESH CHIKKAJALA RAMAKRISHNAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty of Rs. 68,61,132/- levied u/s. 271[1][c] of the Act in respect of the additions made in course of the assessment proceedings that were accepted by the appellant under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that there was no concealment of income

SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Vs The Income Tax Officer - 6(3)(1) No.703, 7Th Floor, Ebony Bmtc Building, 80Ft Road A Wing, Godrej Woods Apts 6Th Block, Koramangla Near Hebbal Flyover Bengaluru 560095 Bangalore 560024 Pan – Acdpj0966D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.K. Prasad, Advocate Revenue By: Dr. Sankar Ganesh K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In Granite Business. For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 28.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,52,370/- Consisting Of Income From House Property, Capital Gains & Business Income. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Issued On 18.09.2015. The Assessee’S Ar Attended Hearing On 30.12.2016 & 2 Shri Sunil Kumar Jalan Produced The Books Of Accounts & Other Details. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Concluded The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016 Making The Following Addition: -

short term capital gain. The CIT(A) held reversing the AO’s finding that the same should be assessed as LTCG. Consequently appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal raising 10 grounds. The ground read as follows: - “Ground of Appeal

MR. HOTHUR MOHAMMED TAUSEEF,BELLARY vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Hothur Mohammed Tauseef, Sofia House, The Deputy Opp: State Bank Of Commissioner Of Mysore, Income Tax, Infantry Road, Circle – 1, Cantonment, Vs. Bellary. Bellary – 583 104. Pan: Acwpt0308C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.S. Balachandran, A.R. Revenue By : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01-02-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2023 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act. 6. The learned AO is also not justified in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Page 3 of 12 7. The grounds are taken without prejudice to one another and the Appellant craves leave to add or delete or modify or revise any ground