CIT v. Intel Technology India (P.) Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BENGALURU

…parels\nP.Ltd., 370 ITR 288 (Del) as well as decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court\nin the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. The ITAT has also made\nreference to the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case\nof CIT Vs. Intel Technology Ltd. P. Ltd., 380 ITR 272 (Kar.). The Tribunal\nhas held that action under section 263 is a jurisdictional action against\nan assessee. In the case of a company, the ld. Commissioner was\nrequired to issue a show cause notice against a juridical person\ncontemplated in section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act and if a juridical\nperson ceases to exist then it would not be cons…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

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

…n Apparels P.Ltd., 370 ITR 288 (Del) as well as decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. The ITAT has also made reference to the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Intel Technology Ltd. P. Ltd., 380 ITR 272 (Kar.). The Tribunal has held that action under section 263 is a jurisdictional action against an assessee. In the case of a company, the ld. Commissioner was required to issue a show cause notice against a juridical person contemplated in section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act and if a juridical person ceases to exist then it would not be construed…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

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

…n Apparels P.Ltd., 370 ITR 288 (Del) as well as decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. The ITAT has also made reference to the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Intel Technology Ltd. P. Ltd., 380 ITR 272 (Kar.). The Tribunal has held that action under section 263 is a jurisdictional action against an assessee. In the case of a company, the ld. Commissioner was required to issue a show cause notice against a juridical person ITA Nos.764, 767/Bang/2025 Page 17 of 52 contemplated in section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act and if a juridical person cea…

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

…Apparels P. Ltd., 370 ITR 288 (Del) as well as decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. The ITAT has also made reference to the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Intel Technology Ltd. P. Ltd., 380 ITR 272 (Kar.). The Tribunal has held that action under section 263 is a jurisdictional action against an assessee. In the case of a company, the ld. Commissioner was required to issue a show cause notice against a juridical person contemplated in section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act and if a juridical person ceases to exist then it would not be construed…

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

…Apparels P. Ltd., 370 ITR 288 (Del) as well as decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. The ITAT has also made reference to the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Intel Technology Ltd. P. Ltd., 380 ITR 272 (Kar.). The Tribunal has held that action under section 263 is a jurisdictional action against an assessee. In the case of a company, the ld. Commissioner was required to issue a show cause notice against a juridical person contemplated in section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act and if a juridical person ceases to exist then it would not be construed…

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

…Apparels P. Ltd., 370 ITR 288 (Del) as well as decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. The ITAT has also made reference to the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Intel Technology Ltd. P. Ltd., 380 ITR 272 (Kar.). The Tribunal has held that action under section 263 is a jurisdictional action against an assessee. In the case of a company, the ld. Commissioner was required to issue a show cause notice against a juridical person contemplated in section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act and if a juridical person ceases to exist then it would not be construed…

BIOCON BIOLOGICS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BIOCON BIOLOGICS INDIA LIMITED) (SUCCESSOR TO BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.299/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Biocon Biologics Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Biocon Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Biologics India Limited) Bengaluru. Ground Floor, Tower 3, Semicon Park, Hosur Road, Electronics City S.O. Bangalore South – 560 100. Pan : Aagcb7796M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 26.02.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-2018. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee, Namely, Biocon Biologics Limited [Successor. To Biocon Research Limited With Appointed Date 01.04.2019] Is Engaged In The Carrying Out Research & Development ("R & D") Of Drugs & Drug Delivery Systems. For The Relevant Assessment Year ("Ay") 2017-18, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2017, Declaring `Nil’ Income Under The Normal Provisions Of The I.T.Act & Book Losses As 2 It(Tp)A No.299/Bang/2022. M/S.Biocon Biologics Limited Per The Provisions Of Section 115Jb Of The I.T.Act. After Considering The Taxes Deducted At Source, The Assessee Had Claimed Refund Of Inr 4,68,29,020 In The Return Of Income.

…ity, inspite of repeated intimation to the Assessing Officer, and therefore, the same is bad in law. In this context, the learned AR relied on the following case laws:- (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) (ii) Intel Technology India (P) Ltd. 380 ITR 272 (Kar.) (iii) eMudhra Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 550 (Kar.) 8. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. reported in (2022) 443 ITR 194 (SC) and the finding of the DRP. 9. In the rejoinder, the learned AR submitted that th…

M/S. CENTUM ELECTRONICS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Centum Electronics Ltd. #44, Ground Floor, Deputy Commissioner Of Khb Industrial Area Vs. Income-Tax Yelahanka New Town Circle-2(1)(1) Bengaluru 560 106 Bengaluru Pan No : Aakcs7429L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.R. Respondent By : Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Bengaluru-2 Dated 28.2.2019 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Are Reproduced As Follows:- That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In 1. So Far It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Bad & Erroneous In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 2. On Facts In Justifying The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Order Against M/S. Solectron Ems India Ltd Even Though The Said Entity Does Not Exist On The Date Of The Passing The Order. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law & 3. On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Passing An Assessment Order Against A Non-Existing Person. 4. That The Order U/S 147 Is Without Jurisdiction.

…ITA No.946 /Bang/2019 M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd. #44, Ground Floor, Deputy Commissioner of KHB Industrial Area Vs. Income-tax Yelahanka New Town Circle-2(1)(1) Bengaluru 560 106 Bengaluru PAN NO : AAKCS7429L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S. Ramasubrammaniam, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Srinath Sadanala, D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 O R D E R PER BEENA PILL…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S R R GOLD PALACE , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…e facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment based placing reliance on the judicial decisions in the case of Spice Infotainment Limited (DELHI HC) 247 CTR 500 86 in the case of Intel Technology I P Ltd (KAR HC) 380 ITR 272, wherein the facts of the case are different from the present case to the extent that the assessments in those cases were in respect of amalgamated companies and in the present case, the business of the firm is succeeded by a company which continued to carry on the same business? 4: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S R R GOLD PALACE , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…e facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment based placing reliance on the judicial decisions in the case of Spice Infotainment Limited (DELHI HC) 247 CTR 500 86 in the case of Intel Technology I P Ltd (KAR HC) 380 ITR 272, wherein the facts of the case are different from the present case to the extent that the assessments in those cases were in respect of amalgamated companies and in the present case, the business of the firm is succeeded by a company which continued to carry on the same business? 4: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S R R GOLD PALACE , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…e facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment based placing reliance on the judicial decisions in the case of Spice Infotainment Limited (DELHI HC) 247 CTR 500 86 in the case of Intel Technology I P Ltd (KAR HC) 380 ITR 272, wherein the facts of the case are different from the present case to the extent that the assessments in those cases were in respect of amalgamated companies and in the present case, the business of the firm is succeeded by a company which continued to carry on the same business? 4: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the…