“tangible material”

Ibm India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

believe" which is sin qua non for initiating the reassessment proceedings. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in concluding that there was new tangible material noticed and that there was no change in opinion by the learned AO. 2.5. The Learned CIT(A) has erred ... Ld.AR submitted that admittedly the above notice is issued to the assessee within the period of four years, and therefore there has to be tangible material in order to invoke the provisions of section 147. 5. He submitted that, it is not the case of the revenue that, the assessee

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

test to check abuse of power by the assessing officer. Hence, after 1-4- 1989, assessing officer has power to reopen, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation ... Assessing Officer. Further, it is held that after 1st April 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen provided there is a tangible material to Page 26 of 41 come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. The Apex Court held that mere change of opinion

Corp Attire, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.202/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Nike India Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Ground & First Floor, Circle – 3(1)(1), Olympia Building, No.66/1, Bagmane Tech Bengaluru. Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 093. Pan : Aabcn 9612 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Susan Dolores George, Cit(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

assessee were at the instance or on behalf of the foreign company. The initial onus was on the Revenue to demonstrate through some tangible material that the two parties acted in concert and further that there was an agreement to enter into an international transaction concerning advertising, marketing and sales

Essilor India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 219/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Essilor India Pvt. Ltd., 10Th Floor, Prestige Trade The Deputy Tower, Commissioner Of 46, Palace Road, High Income Tax, Grounds Sampangi Rama Circle-2 (1)(1), Nagar, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan: Aaace4623J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-05-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed By The Ld.Acit, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Essilor India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Eipl" Or The "Company" 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

assessee were at the instance or on behalf of the foreign company. The initial onus was on the Revenue to demonstrate through some tangible material that the two parties acted in concert and further that there was an agreement to enter into an international Page

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Mr. M R Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Ld.AR that the reasons recorded is mere reproduction of information received and therefore there is no live link between the information received be a tangible material and the formation of belief. In our view, the Ld.AO being quasi judicial authority is expected to arrive at a satisfaction independently on objective ... assumption of jurisdiction u/s. Page 21 of 26 147 of the Act. The “reasons to believe”, must demonstrate a live link to the tangible material, and formation of belief, or, the “reason to believe” that, income has escaped assessment. In the present facts of the case, the reasons for reopening

Shri V. Raja Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

have held that the AO erred in reopening the case u/s 147 of the Act, without there being 2. General ground. any new tangible material on record basing on which the re- assessment u/s 147 of the Act can be made. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not properly ... appreciating the fact that when there is no new tangible material available on Legal ground 3. record an assessment already cannot be re-opened and consequently assessment u /s 147 of the Act cannot be made. The Ld. CIT (A) , ought to have also held that the AO erred

Shri. V. Raja Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

have held that the AO erred in reopening the case u/s 147 of the Act, without there being 2. General ground. any new tangible material on record basing on which the re- assessment u/s 147 of the Act can be made. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not properly ... appreciating the fact that when there is no new tangible material available on Legal ground 3. record an assessment already cannot be re-opened and consequently assessment u /s 147 of the Act cannot be made. The Ld. CIT (A) , ought to have also held that the AO erred

Shri. V. Raja Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

have held that the AO erred in reopening the case u/s 147 of the Act, without there being 2. General ground. any new tangible material on record basing on which the re- assessment u/s 147 of the Act can be made. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not properly ... appreciating the fact that when there is no new tangible material available on Legal ground 3. record an assessment already cannot be re-opened and consequently assessment u /s 147 of the Act cannot be made. The Ld. CIT (A) , ought to have also held that the AO erred

Sri. V. Raja Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

have held that the AO erred in reopening the case u/s 147 of the Act, without there being 2. General ground. any new tangible material on record basing on which the re- assessment u/s 147 of the Act can be made. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not properly ... appreciating the fact that when there is no new tangible material available on Legal ground 3. record an assessment already cannot be re-opened and consequently assessment u /s 147 of the Act cannot be made. The Ld. CIT (A) , ought to have also held that the AO erred

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

were on facts which were already on record when the original proceedings u/s.143(3) were completed by the AO. He found that existence of tangible material, for the formation of opinion for escapement of income, after the conclusion of Assessment proceedings, is a prerequisite for initiation of action under section ... were the information already available from the record of assessment. In view of the fact that there was no fresh tangible material in the possession of AO at the time of recording of reasons for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Jupiter Capital P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

were on facts which were already on record when the original proceedings u/s.143(3) were completed by the AO. He found that existence of tangible material, for the formation of opinion for escapement of income, after the conclusion of Assessment proceedings, is a prerequisite for initiation of action under section ... were the information already available from the record of assessment. In view of the fact that there was no fresh tangible material in the possession of AO at the time of recording of reasons for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

were on facts which were already on record when the original proceedings u/s.143(3) were completed by the AO. He found that existence of tangible material, for the formation of opinion for escapement of income, after the conclusion of Assessment proceedings, is a prerequisite for initiation of action under section ... were the information already available from the record of assessment. In view of the fact that there was no fresh tangible material in the possession of AO at the time of recording of reasons for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme