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

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

6 of the assessment order u/s 143(3), in para 9.1 and 9.2 it has been clearly and specifically mentioned that penalty proceedings in the given case has been initiated under the circumstances referred to in subsection (9) of the Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 270AA

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(6

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)

6} of the Act or to cross-examine them. It is a well-established principle of natural justice that the evidence filed by the Assessee cannot be disregarded unless it is cross-verified. In this regard, the Assessee company placed reliance on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of M/s. K.P.Manish Global Ingredients

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), 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

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 of the Act is imposable for under-reporting of income, which is in accordance with the provisions of the section. The penalty imposed

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

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

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

section 270A(6) of the Act has to be granted. 7. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the disallowances made in the assessment order amounts to under-reporting of income. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant herein seeks the leave

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

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

68 online, but due to technical reasons, the same is not filed. Accordingly, immunity was requested by letter dated 06.07.2024. 4. The learned AO held that as Form No.68 is not filed, levy of penalty is mandatory as assessee has not furnished any reply. Accordingly, penalty of Rs.2,17,158/- under section 270A of the Act was levied. Page

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

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

6. The Learned CIT(A) and AO impugned adjustments being merely based on presumption and surmises, are to be deleted. 7. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in raising demand vide issue of notice under section 156 of the Act. 8. The Learned CIT(A) and AO has erred in levying intere'st under section 234Aand

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

6. The Learned CIT(A) and AO impugned adjustments being merely based on presumption and surmises, are to be deleted. 7. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in raising demand vide issue of notice under section 156 of the Act. 8. The Learned CIT(A) and AO has erred in levying intere'st under section 234Aand

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

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 is not sustainable. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the ground either at or before the hearing of the appeal

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