IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

270A of the Act, we first consider section 270AA of the Act in order to find out whether the Form 68

VISHWANATHAREDDY CHENNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BENGALURU

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

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act. If the assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and sources, the credit shown in the books of accounts in the assessment year under consideration is open to the lower authorities to hold that it is the income of the assessee and there would be no burden

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

270A ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076855927(1) 10.06.2025 NFAC/2021- 22/10406268 under section 271AAC1 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077236277(1) 19/06/2025 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: ITA No.1419/Bang/2025 1) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without granting adequate opportunity to the appellant, despite repeated requests for reasonable adjournment, thereby violating the principles of natural

AKSHATA VISHWAS TUDAVEKAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

68 electronically for the above-mentioned assessment years. The ld. A.R. pleaded for exercising the power vested in terms of Section 270A

M/S. WINDSOR GARDENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

68 within one month from the end of the month in which the assessment order had been received, it can not claim immunity under section 270AA of the Act. Hence, penalty u/s 270A

MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

68,361/- from sale of immovable property. Thereafter, the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was completed on 28.2.2023 on a total income of Rs.20,92,490/-. The AO on or before the completion of assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act also initiated the penalty proceedings with the following observations. “Since the assessee has claimed

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

270A NFAC/2021- 22/10406268 under section 271AAC1 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076855927(1) 10.06.2025 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077155818(1) 18/06/2025 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077236277(1) 19/06/2025 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: ITA No.1419/Bang/2025 1) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without granting adequate opportunity to the appellant, despite repeated requests for reasonable adjournment, thereby violating

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

270A ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077236277(1) 19/06/2025 NFAC/2021- 22/10406268 under section 271AAC1 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077236277(1) 19/06/2025 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: ITA No.1419/Bang/2025 1) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without granting adequate opportunity to the appellant, despite repeated requests for reasonable adjournment, thereby violating the principles of natural

JOYDEEP MUKHERJEE,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT USA vs. DCIT, INTL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19 Joydeep Mukherjee, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner A 202, Prestige St. Johns Woods Of Income Tax Apt., 80, St. Johns Cross Road, International Taxation, Circle 1(2), Bengaluru South 560 029. Bangalore. Pan: Aawpm 7656E

section 270A of the Act were initiated. 6. In response to the above penalty show cause notice the assessee submitted that assessee has filed an application in form No. 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DISTRIBUTION LOGISTICS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeals and the COs of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No.234, 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building, Circle -2(1)(1), Bengaluru. Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095. Pan : Aabcv 7123 P Appellant Respondent C.O.No.5/Bang/2024 (In Ita No.1104/Bang/2023) Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Circle -2(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 095. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 7123 P Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Prakash Hegde, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Akta Jain B, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024 O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue & Cross-Objection (Co) By The Assessee Arise Out Of Cit(A)’S Order Dated 27.10.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. C.O. No.5/Bang/2024 Page 2 Of 4

section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income. C.O. No.5/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 4 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has also filed CO. 6. We have heard the learned DR and learned AR. We find that as against the quantum assessment, assessee

BANGALORE HOUSING DEV AND INV, ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(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

270A, the assessee voluntarily paid the dues and also filed an application in form no. 68 as per section

MEDA LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY NAVEEN KUMAR,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2018-19 Mr. Meda Lakshminarayana Setty Vs. Ito, Naveen Kumar, Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Fat No.305, Bougainvilla, Sankalp Mysore. Central Park, Yadavagiri, Mysore – 570 009. Pan : Ablpn 5943 K Appellant Respondent

section 270A of the Act was issued on 20.03.2024 wherein the assessee replied on 08.07.2024 stating that assessee has paid the due tax thereon, does not want to file appeal and claim immunity u/s 270AA of the act so, tried filing Form 68

R ARUNACHALAM P C P P LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

270A and section 271AAC(1) of the Act even though there was there was no under-reporting of income alleged by the learned Assessing Officer and the income alleged u/s 68

SHRI SHIVASHAKTI SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMIT,MELLIGERI TOWERS, BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 BAGALKOT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

270A of the Act. 10. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings by issuing of notice under section 271AAC of the Act. Grounds raised by theRevenue : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred indeleting the addition made u/s 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. SHRI SHIVASHAKTI SOUHARDA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMIT, .

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

270A of the Act. 10. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings by issuing of notice under section 271AAC of the Act. Grounds raised by theRevenue : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred indeleting the addition made u/s 68

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

270A of the Act for under-reporting of income. 3. Ground No. 3: Incorrect levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act The learned AO, erred in law and facts, on levying consequential interest under section 234A, 2348 and 234C of the Act. IT(TP)A No.2525/Bang/2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Each

SHRI. MARATE VENKATESHKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(6), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

section 68 on the sole reason that there is a time gap between the date of withdrawals from the bank account and re-deposit the same in the bank account. Unless the Assessing officer demonstrates that the amount in question has been used by the assessee for any other purpose. In my view, addition is made on inferences

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) , CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU , BENGALURU vs. TATA COMMUNICATIONS (UK) LIMITED, UNITED KINGDOM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO of the assesseeare dismissed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.39/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

68 Upper Thames Street, Bangalore. London EC4V3BJ, United Kingdom 999999. PAN :AAHCT 0782 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT CONo.8/Bang/2025 (in ITA No.39/Bang/2025) Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Tata Communications (UK) Ltd., Vs. DCIT (International United Kingdom 999999. Taxation), PAN :AAHCT 0782 C Circle –2(2), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ketan Ved, CA Revenue by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT