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

270A.” Also as per CBDT Notification No 3/2022, dated 16.07.22, filing of Form 68 is mandatorily to be done electronically through e-filing portal. In the given case assessee has sent an email seeking immunity and no form 68 application was efiled. Moreover as discussed in para above, as the provisions of immunity itself not applicable in the assessee

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

8 of the PB),\n• all of which clearly establish that no amount was received\nduring the year under consideration. Thus, the primary pre-\ncondition for invoking section 68—i.e., a credit of money\nduring the relevant previous year—is wholly absent.\n18.\nDuring the current year (AY 2022-23), the assessee\nmerely undertook a conversion of the existing

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

8 of the PB),\n• all of which clearly establish that no amount was received\nduring the year under consideration. Thus, the primary pre-\ncondition for invoking section 68—i.e., a credit of money\nduring the relevant previous year—is wholly absent.\n18.\nDuring the current year (AY 2022-23), the assessee\nmerely undertook a conversion of the existing

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

8 of the PB),\n• all of which clearly establish that no amount was received\nduring the year under consideration. Thus, the primary pre-\ncondition for invoking section 68—i.e., a credit of money\nduring the relevant previous year—is wholly absent.\n18.\nDuring the current year (AY 2022-23), the assessee\nmerely undertook a conversion of the existing

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)

8. Facts of the issue are that the assessee has shown unsecured loan of Rs.3,96,81,929/- as on 31/03/2017. The assessee was requested to provide the details of persons from whom he has received unsecured loan along with their ITR V, computation of income, balance sheet etc., the assessee has not submitted any details which can prove

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

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 under section 270AA(2) on 8

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

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

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

8 of 11 basic training. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing wrong in approaching a ITP for the preparation of the income tax returns for both the years which would definitely fall within the scope of Section 270A(6)(a) of the Act. Hence, he pleaded for exercising the power vested in terms of Section 270A

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

8. The Ld.AR further submitted that the mere showing the income under the head income from house property and subsequently, claimed the same as profits and gains of business or profession, that too based on the Hon’ble Super Court order could not be treated as an underreporting of income and hence the penalty u/s. 270A need not be imposed

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

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

8. The Learned CIT(A) and AO has erred in levying intere'st under section 234Aand 234B of the Act. 9. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings by issuing of notice under section 270A of the Act. 10. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings by issuing of notice under section 271AAC

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

8. The Learned CIT(A) and AO has erred in levying intere'st under section 234Aand 234B of the Act. 9. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings by issuing of notice under section 270A of the Act. 10. The Learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings by issuing of notice under section 271AAC

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

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

270A, without any basis and\ncontrary to evidence on record, books of account, the\naudited financial statements and tax audit reports in Form\n3CA & 3CD.\n11. 3. Without prejudice, the Learned AO was not\njustified in making addition of Rs.20,59,84,960/- merely\nbased on the revised return on 09.02.2021, which is liable\nto be regarded as a defective

JURIMATRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.92/Bang/2025\N Assessment Years:2018-19\Njurimatrix Services India Pvt. Ltd.\Ng4, Aspen Building\Nmanyata Embassy Business Park\Nhebbal\Nbangalore 560045\Npan No: Aabcj6157D\Nappellant\Nacit\Nvs. Circle 4(3)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By : Sri K.R. Girish, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing : 21.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025\Norder\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 30.03.2023 Vide Din & Order No.\Nitba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051648832(1) Passed U/S 263 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment\Nyear 2018-19.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\Ngeneral Grounds Of Appeal\N1.

68,840 dated 23 March, 2024.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds, at\nany time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. Each of the above objections is\nindependent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the Appellant.\n3. At the outset, there is a delay

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

270A of the Income Tax Act. As this matter is premature at this stage, it is dismissed accordingly as infructuous. 5. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee in Grounds Nos. 4 to 13 of its appeal pertains to the action of the learned DRP/TPO/AO in benchmarking the payment of royalty at NIL. 6. The facts in brief are that

IMS HEALTH ANALYTICS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

68,090\nOperating Profit/Loss\n123,400,623\nOP/OC\n3.68%\nOP/OR\n3.55%\n4.2\nFinally, the TPO worked the PLI of the assessee at 3.68% and\n3.55% as OP/OC and OP/OR respectively which was objected before Id.\nDRP. The Id. DRP in this regard has issued the following direction:\n“2.5.1 Having considered the submissions, The TPO is directed to\nverify