Trib.). 18. Devas Multimedia (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore

111 Taxmann.com 494High Court2019#22021 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also reported as

268 Taxmann 150

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C Section 234C Section 253(d)Section 36(1)(va)

Judgments citing Trib.). 18. Devas Multimedia (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore

Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3689/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarmondelez India Foods Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Mumbai- Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, 8 Tower-3 (Wing C), One 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar International Cente Bhavan, Maharshi (Formerly Indiabulls Finance Karve Road, Mumbai- Centre) Parel, Mumbai- 400020 400013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc0460H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakker & Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 20.03.2025 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Pcit, Mumbai-8 (‘The Ld. Pcit’) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below:

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER& HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mondelez India Foods Vs. Principal Commissioner Private Limited of Income-tax, Mumbai- Unit No. 2001, 20th Floor, 8 Tower-3 (Wing C), One 611, 6th floor, Aayakar International Cente Bhavan, Maharshi (formerly Indiabulls Finance Karve Road, Mumbai- Centre) Parel, Mumbai- 400020 400013 PAN/GIR No. AAACC0460H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nishant Thakker & Hiten Thakkar Revenue by Shri Krishna Kumar (SR. DR.) Date of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date of Pronou…

Comer Industries India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1228/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 234CSection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 Comer Industries India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner 16A, Bommasandra Industrial of Income Tax, Area, Attibele Hobli, Circle 2(2)(1), Anekal Taluk, Bangalore 560099 Bangalore. PAN: AAGCC 1941H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Balasubramanyam, CA Respondent by : Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 25.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice Presid…

Barclays Bank Plc, Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-Range-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 827/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 37

…gs u/s 263 in respect of order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144(C), there are no direct judgments of the High Court on this subject except the decision by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Devas Multimedia P. Ltd. V/s. PCIT (2020) 268 Taxman 150, (2019) 111 Taxmann.com 494(Kar). In this decision the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held quoting from the head notes that--- No-doubt DRP panel consists of three Commissioners and Principal Commissioner examining or sitting over decision of the DRP may not be appropriate. At the same time, one cannot lose sight off, of a statutory provision like section 263 unl…