CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

TDS. The AO completed the assessment by proposing a variation of Rs. 2,56,45,949 and passed an order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act dt. 29.12.2022. 5. The notice under section 263

M/S. SEIKO WATCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Seiko Watch India Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, #874, Ground Floor Temple Vista, Circle – 6(1)(1), Shri Krishna Temple Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Indiranagar I Stage, Bengaluru – 560 038. Pan : Aakcs 6484 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nithin Surana, Ca Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr), Itat, Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2023

263 cannot be made where two views are possible and the AO has accepted one of the possible views while passing the assessment order. 2.5 Without prejudice, the learned Pr. CIT has erred in not appreciating that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) accepting the payment of sales incentives without deduction of TDS

M/S. CORPORATE LEISURE & PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

section 263 of the Act if there was any inquiry conducted by the assessing officer on an issue, even if the inquiry so made was inadequate under the facts of the case. 5. The learned PCIT failed to appreciate that the total payment of wages to the workers across various project sites during the year under consideration was Rs.1

MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

263 of the Act and issued notice dated 28.12.2023 vide DIN and Notice No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2023-24/1059134810(1) observed that as per Form No.26AS there is commission receipt of Rs.12 lakhs which has not been offered in the return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. However, as per Form 26AS there is TDS

ASHOK IRAPPA BANNUR ,BAGALKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BELAGAVI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

TDS earlier claimed as not applicable was not in order and hence the disallowance was sought to be made under section 40(a)(ia) of the act. This is an officer has not proceeded to pass an order of rectification and rectification proceedings by issue of notice have since abated. 2.4 In the meanwhile assessee received show cause notice under

M/S. ORIGAMI CELLULO PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 263 of the Act. In our opinion, once the ld. CIT initiates the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act for specific reasons and these reasons are met by the assessee, then it is incumbent upon the ld. CIT to himself independently deal with the objections and record his own satisfaction to prove that the AO’s order

COMER INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

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

section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner of the Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act and if he considers that the order passed by the AO is erroneous sofaras it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may either pass an order or direct the AO to carry

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees, in respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign companies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were conducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/ assessment order under section

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees, in respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign companies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were conducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/ assessment order under section

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees, in respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign companies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were conducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/ assessment order under section

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees, in respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign companies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were conducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/ assessment order under section

THINK AND LEARN PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Think & Learn Private Limited, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, 4/1, 6Th Floor, Tower D, Ibc Bengaluru. Knowledge Park, Bannerghatta Main Road, Opposite Fire Station, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan : Aaect 0931 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2022 Of The Principal Cit – 3 (Pcit), Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1962 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Providing Online Learning Platform In The Name Of “Byju” For Kindergarten To 12Th Standard Students & Other Related Services. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Page 2 Of 10

263 of the Act, was of the view that the action of the AO in passing the order dated 24.12.2019 under section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because as per the provisions of section 245R(a)(i) of the Act, the AO shall not consider

INVITROGEN BIOSERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member

section 263 to be bad in law and the same is quashed and set-aside. Accordingly grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31-10-2019 (B.R.BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31-10-2019 *am Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1.Appellant

M/S.GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

263 of the Act.” 16. Thus in the case of Canara Housing Development Company, the jurisdictional High Court has not laid down any proposition of law that in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of search, proceeding under section 153A can be initiated and the assessment completed under section 143(3) or 143(1) can be relooked

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

263 of the Act.” 16. Thus in the case of Canara Housing Development Company, the jurisdictional High Court has not laid down any proposition of law that in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of search, proceeding under section 153A can be initiated and the assessment completed under section 143(3) or 143(1) can be relooked

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

263 of the Act.” 16. Thus in the case of Canara Housing Development Company, the jurisdictional High Court has not laid down any proposition of law that in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of search, proceeding under section 153A can be initiated and the assessment completed under section 143(3) or 143(1) can be relooked

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

263 of the Act.” 16. Thus in the case of Canara Housing Development Company, the jurisdictional High Court has not laid down any proposition of law that in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of search, proceeding under section 153A can be initiated and the assessment completed under section 143(3) or 143(1) can be relooked

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. GMR HYDERABAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessees' appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

263 of the Act.” 16. Thus in the case of Canara Housing Development Company, the jurisdictional High Court has not laid down any proposition of law that in the absence of incriminating material found during the course of search, proceeding under section 153A can be initiated and the assessment completed under section 143(3) or 143(1) can be relooked