CHIGURUVADA DILEEP KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

b) of sub- section (2) of section 249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270Aand initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 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

2 of 12 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee being an individual had not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. The case was reopened on the basis of information flagged by Insight Portal that the assessee has received interest of Rs.0.18 lakhs, received contractual receipt of Rs.176.81 lakhs, sold property

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)

2(l)(l), [2020] 113 taxmann.com 386 (Bangalore -Trib.)/[2020] 180 ITD 813, held that, "The assessee has discharged its primary Vishwanathareddy Chennareddy, Bangalore Page 17 of 25 onus/burden and the assessee could not be asked to do impossible. Fourthly, it held that the Income-tax Department has all the information and data base in its possession and control

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 of the Act for under reporting of income is not justified and hence the same be deleted and or set aside. 4. For that in facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty notice issued is bad in law. Hence, the penalty order be cancelled. 5. That the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is contrary

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 of the Act for under reporting of income is not justified and hence the same be deleted and or set aside. 4. For that in facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty notice issued is bad in law. Hence, the penalty order be cancelled. 5. That the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is contrary

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 of the Act for under reporting of income is not justified and hence the same be deleted and or set aside. 4. For that in facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty notice issued is bad in law. Hence, the penalty order be cancelled. 5. That the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is contrary

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

B' Bench, and at the said point in time mistake committed by the Office of the Counsel on Record was noticed. The Appellate Tribunal, at Chennai in their order dated 15.05.2023 had dismissed the appeal of the assessee as un-admitted with liberty to file the correct / current appeal against impugned order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore

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

B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE GEORGE GEORGE K. JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Windsor Gardens Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner of No.722, 37th Cross, 9th Main, Income-tax, 5th Block, Jayanagar, Vs. Circle-7(1)(2), Bengaluru-560 041. Bengaluru. PAN : AAACW 3001 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri H.C Kincha, C.A Revenue

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

B, Pent Commissioner of House, Income Tax, Old Airport Road, Circle 1 (2)(1), Bangalore – 560 008. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAGFB0819A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sandeep C, CA Revenue by : Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 07-05-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25-06-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed

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

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

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, Vice President : This appeal at the instance of the Revenue and 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

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

68,00.00,000 claimed by the Appellant to keep the issue alive as SLP is pending against the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Lemon Tree Hotels. 7.3. The NeAC and the Hon'ble DRP have erred on facts and in law in disallowing the said expense without giving cognizance to the facts of the Appellant

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

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

270A of the Act. 5.2. The Learned AO has erred, in law and on facts, in computing and levying interest under section 234B of the Act. 2. Ground Nos.1 to 1.9 are general in nature, which do not require adjudication. 2.1 Ground Nos.2 to 2.8, ground Nos.3 to 3.5 and ground Nos.4 to 4.4 are not pressed before

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

B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment 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 Appellant by : Shri. Siddesh N Gaddi, CA Respondent by : Shri. K. Subramanian

CARL ZEISS INDIA (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 192/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Carl Zeiss India (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Plot No. 3, Jigani Link Road, Commissioner Of Bommasandra Industrial Income Tax, Area, Circle 2 (1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 099. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aadcc6152H Appellant Respondent : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 25.01.2022 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Carl Zeiss India (Bangalore) Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Carl Zeiss India" Or "The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/ Income- Tax Officer, National Faceless Center, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Assessing Officer" Or The "Ld. Ao"), Dated 25 January 2022 For The Assessment Year ("Ay")

270A of the Act. 6. The Ld. AO have erred in issuing a demand notice under section 156 of the Act. The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add. alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal