BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

91 results for “reassessment”+ Permanent Establishmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi595Mumbai330Chennai155Bangalore91Jaipur64Kolkata59Raipur45Amritsar37Telangana29Cochin27Ahmedabad24Cuttack17Chandigarh16Lucknow16Dehradun8Pune7Karnataka7Guwahati7Indore6Jodhpur5SC5Kerala4Hyderabad4Rajkot3Orissa3Surat3Jabalpur1Patna1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 153A59Section 143(3)52Section 14852Section 14750Addition to Income42Section 13236Section 6(1)(c)28Section 153C26Section 4025

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

reassessment notices had been issued by the Department for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, which would be nothing but multiplicity of proceedings to be faced by the petitioner whereas under law section 194H of the Act was not applicable in the facts. The petitioner had rightly invoked the jurisdiction of the court

Showing 1–20 of 91 · Page 1 of 5

Deduction15
Reassessment14
TDS13

WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 343/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

permanent establishment of assessee in India. 2.4 It is submitted that during the year under consideration, the SanDisk LLC, USA was in receipt of reimbursement from SanDisk India towards reimbursement of salary expenses of expats. The Ld.AO was of the opinion that, the marketing support team of SanDisk India creates a PE of assessee and treated the reimbursement of salary

M/S NICE LTD ,ISRAEL vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.287/Bang/2018 is partly allowed, while ITA

ITA 287/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 195Section 200

permanent establishment of the non-resident supplier, there is no obligation on the part of the payee to make deduction under section 195(1). [Para 22] It is well-settled that in the absence of any definition of 'copyright' in the Income-tax Act or the DTAA with the respective Countries, in view of clause 3 of the DTAA, reference

M/S NICE LTD ,ISRAEL vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)INTEERNATIONAL TAXATION , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.287/Bang/2018 is partly allowed, while ITA

ITA 289/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 195Section 200

permanent establishment of the non-resident supplier, there is no obligation on the part of the payee to make deduction under section 195(1). [Para 22] It is well-settled that in the absence of any definition of 'copyright' in the Income-tax Act or the DTAA with the respective Countries, in view of clause 3 of the DTAA, reference

ITO vs. SRI. N.P. BAGWA & OTHERS,

In the result, all these appeals and cross objections are allowed

ITA 1012/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 144

permanent establishment (not being general administrative/executive expenses) and reimbursed to it, are allowable in full and not subject to limits in sec.44C of the IT Act, 1961”. 13. The facts in this case are that two companies formed a consortium for the limited purpose and each party was required to perform its specified portion of the contract separately and each

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

ITA 544/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

establishes by itself that the ‘make available’ criteria is satisfied and the subject receipts are taxable as FTS. (Page 23 of the CIT(A) order) - - The CIT(A) has contended that mere MAK Data (supra) ruling is in the context acceptance of tax liability will not of a case where income was voluntarily preclude the levy of the penalty

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

ITA 497/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

establishes by itself that the ‘make available’ criteria is satisfied and the subject receipts are taxable as FTS. (Page 23 of the CIT(A) order) - - The CIT(A) has contended that mere MAK Data (supra) ruling is in the context acceptance of tax liability will not of a case where income was voluntarily preclude the levy of the penalty

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

ITA 499/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

establishes by itself that the ‘make available’ criteria is satisfied and the subject receipts are taxable as FTS. (Page 23 of the CIT(A) order) - - The CIT(A) has contended that mere MAK Data (supra) ruling is in the context acceptance of tax liability will not of a case where income was voluntarily preclude the levy of the penalty

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

ITA 496/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

establishes by itself that the ‘make available’ criteria is satisfied and the subject receipts are taxable as FTS. (Page 23 of the CIT(A) order) - - The CIT(A) has contended that mere MAK Data (supra) ruling is in the context acceptance of tax liability will not of a case where income was voluntarily preclude the levy of the penalty

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2806/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO
Section 10Section 147Section 148

established that reassessment actions commenced more than three years after the relevant Assessment Year require approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner, not the Principal Commissioner. Thus, sanction provided by the Principal Commissioner for reassessment under Section 148A would not stand. 21. In this context, he submitted that, based on information available on record, approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2807/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO
Section 10Section 147Section 148

established that reassessment actions commenced more than three years after the relevant Assessment Year require approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner, not the Principal Commissioner. Thus, sanction provided by the Principal Commissioner for reassessment under Section 148A would not stand. 21. In this context, he submitted that, based on information available on record, approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJANAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2808/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO
Section 10Section 147Section 148

established that reassessment actions commenced more than three years after the relevant Assessment Year require approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner, not the Principal Commissioner. Thus, sanction provided by the Principal Commissioner for reassessment under Section 148A would not stand. 21. In this context, he submitted that, based on information available on record, approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITEE,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2805/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N – JCIT & Shri Raghu, ITO
Section 10Section 147Section 148

established that reassessment actions commenced more than three years after the relevant Assessment Year require approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner, not the Principal Commissioner. Thus, sanction provided by the Principal Commissioner for reassessment under Section 148A would not stand. 21. In this context, he submitted that, based on information available on record, approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner

M/S. EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOW AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1113/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

permanent establishments of such foreign vendors in India. 4.3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned assessing officer and the CIT(A). NFAC have erred in not adopting the beneficial provisions under the Double Tax Avoidance Agreements. 4.4. The learned AO and the CIT(A). NFAC have erred in not appreciating that payments for annual maintenance contracts shall ITA Nos.1113

EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED) ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1114/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

permanent establishments of such foreign vendors in India. 4.3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned assessing officer and the CIT(A). NFAC have erred in not adopting the beneficial provisions under the Double Tax Avoidance Agreements. 4.4. The learned AO and the CIT(A). NFAC have erred in not appreciating that payments for annual maintenance contracts shall ITA Nos.1113

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

ITA 101/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Arjit Prasad, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Subash K R, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201

establishment of such\nnon-resident telecom operators in India. Thereafter Hon'ble High\nCourt after verifying the facts of the case having regards to the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Engineering Analysis\nCentre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2021) 432 ITR\n471 observed and held as under:\n“12. We have carefully considered

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

ITA 102/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri Arjit Prasad, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: \nDr. Subash K R, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 201

establishment of such\nnon-resident telecom operators in India. Thereafter Hon'ble High\nCourt after verifying the facts of the case having regards to the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Engineering Analysis\nCentre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2021) 432 ITR\n471 observed and held as under:\n\"12. We have carefully considered

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 191/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

reassessment proceeding had to be completed. Accordingly, the AO IT(IT)A Nos.191 to 194/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 43 passed the draft assessment order making additions towards royalty income as under:- Asst. Year Amount

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 194/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Ms. Priya Tandon, ShriFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

reassessment proceeding had to be completed. Accordingly, the AO IT(IT)A Nos.191 to 194/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 43 passed the draft assessment order making additions towards royalty income as under:- Asst. Year Amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. ALGONOMY SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTHAN SOFTWARE SERVICES PVT LTD), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the cross objections being C

ITA 945/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

reassessment proceeding u/s. 147 was initiated by the Ld.AO and consequently by and under the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, disallowance of sales commission paid to MSI was made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act which was challenged by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority. However, the order was made reversed