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

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

68 shall be made within one month from\nthe end of the month in which the order has been received.\n5. The proceedings for the penalty has not been initiated under\nthe circumstances referred in section 270A(9

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,\non account of share capital and share premium received in the earlier\nyears and no credit was received in the current year. Hence, the same be\ndeleted.\n4) That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining an ad-hoc disallowance of\n*24,06,60,000, being 20% of the total

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

270A of the Act for under reporting of income is not\njustified and hence the same be deleted and or set aside.\n4. For that in facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty notice issued\nis bad in law. Hence, the penalty order be cancelled.\n5. 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

270A of the Act for under reporting of income is not\njustified and hence the same be deleted and or set aside.\n4. For that in facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty notice issued\nis bad in law. Hence, the penalty order be cancelled.\n5. That the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is contrary

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

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)

9. The learned CIT (Appeals) has accepted the contention of the assessee that out of the total unsecured loan of Rs.3,96,81,929/-, an amount of Rs. 1,98,10,565/- relating to the previous years and to that extent, additions were deleted. For the remaining balance of Rs.l,98,71,364/-, the learned CIT (Appeals) upheld the addition

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

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

9 is subsequently in response to notice under section 148 of the Act penalty proceedings under 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

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 filed or for creating the scenario for the competent authority / JAO Akshata Vishwas Tudavekar, Bangalore Page 9 of 11 to consider and grant immunity in terms of Section 270AA of the Act and thus render justice. 7. The ld. D.R. strongly opposed the arguments of the assessee’s counsel. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

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 need not be imposed. 9. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 11. The assessee being in the business of real estate and earned income from the rental, shown the said income as income from house property and claimed

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

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

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

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 return

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

GOPAL ANIL KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

270A(9)(c) 2,48,73,893/- Gopal Anil Kumar, Bengaluru Page 4 of 13 The Assessment was concluded as below: Income as per ROI dated 20.4.2022 83,45,360/- Additions as per table above 2,48,73,893/- Assessed income 3,32,19,253/- 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 147 of the Act on 30.3.2023, the assessee

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

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 of the Act. Grounds raised by theRevenue : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

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 of the Act. Grounds raised by theRevenue : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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