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

147 is to be read to include the act of reassessing additional issues (not included in the original notice). 3. Deductibility of sales tax paid on sale of PC division 3.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in upholding the learned AO's action of treating the sales tax Page 3 of 19 paid

M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2008-

147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing the refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154.” 10. It has been made clear by the Hon’ble High Court that sub-section (2) does not ifso facto empower the AO to apply the method prescribed by Rules straightaway without considering whether

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 of the Act as there was escapement of income due to wrong claim of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 10. We have

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 of the Act as there was escapement of income due to wrong claim of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 10. We have

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 of the Act as there was escapement of income due to wrong claim of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 10. We have

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. COFFEE DAY ENTERPRISES, BENGALURU

In the result, all the COs by assessee in CO

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 147 of the Act as there was escapement of income due to wrong claim of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 10. We have

M/S. UE DEVELOPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

147 are not satisfied and therefore, on the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned notice deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Having regard to the position of law and material available on record, it cannot be said that there was no full and true disclosure at the end of the Assessee of the material fact necessary for the purpose

M/S TATA ADVANCED MATERIALS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

147 are not satisfied and therefore, on the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned notice deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Having regard to the position of law and material available on record, it cannot be said that there was no full and true disclosure at the end of the Assessee of the material fact necessary for the purpose

TATA ADVANCED MATERIALS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

147 are not satisfied and therefore, on the aforesaid ground alone, the impugned notice deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Having regard to the position of law and material available on record, it cannot be said that there was no full and true disclosure at the end of the Assessee of the material fact necessary for the purpose

LOKESH TALANKI ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

section 54F as the AO was of the opinion that the assessee owned more than one residential house during the assessment year 2013-14 and hence not entitled for claim u/s. 54F. The AO passed an assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 21.03.2018 disallowing

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

section 147 of the Act and hence the proceedings are deemed to invalid and void ab initio. 3. Disallowance of clinical

MR.M J ARAVIND ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowed the expenses and brought it to tax. 2. Thus the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 by the AO determining total income of Rs.2,77,88,730 granting refund of Rs.1,72,940. The contention of the ld. AR is that during the course of original assessment, the assessee filed various documents along with balance sheet

M/S. NITESH ESTATES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 5(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

disallowed.” Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is an appeal before the Tribunal. Page 5 of 17 Application for condonation of delay 5. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal. The Ld.AR has filed affidavit of assessee dated 02/02/2022 in support of the reasonable cause

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 dated 24.11.2017, the made addition on disallowance of CSR expenditure. Now the contention of the ld. AR is that it is only a change of opinion and this issue was discussed in the original assessment proceedings and after considering the reply of the assessee on this issue, the AO has not made any addition there. Considering the same issue

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 dated 24.11.2017, the made addition on disallowance of CSR expenditure. Now the contention of the ld. AR is that it is only a change of opinion and this issue was discussed in the original assessment proceedings and after considering the reply of the assessee on this issue, the AO has not made any addition there. Considering the same issue

M/S. ANSYS SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

disallow sum of Rs. 50 Lacs being excess claimed as deduction under section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. 6. Assessee filed various its objection on 17/04/2016 in respect of the same is which was disregarded by the Ld.AO. The Ld.AO passed order under section 143 (3) read with section 147

M/S. ANSYS SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

disallow sum of Rs. 50 Lacs being excess claimed as deduction under section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. 6. Assessee filed various its objection on 17/04/2016 in respect of the same is which was disregarded by the Ld.AO. The Ld.AO passed order under section 143 (3) read with section 147

M/S. ANSYS SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

disallow sum of Rs. 50 Lacs being excess claimed as deduction under section 36 (1) (viia) of the Act. 6. Assessee filed various its objection on 17/04/2016 in respect of the same is which was disregarded by the Ld.AO. The Ld.AO passed order under section 143 (3) read with section 147