DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

12,475/-has been pasted under the head of account 'business promotion expenses of the company. The argument of the assessee in this regard may be accepted. On addition of Rs.84,61,055/ The assessee's Chartered Accountant Sri Kiron has stated that the cheque deposits in assessee's Savings account are all transfers from within the family members, firms

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY vs. SHRI. HOTHUR MOHAMED IQBAL, BALLARI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

12. 05.12.2017 Notice u/s 142(1) issued by ACIT, Central Circle- 3(1), Kolkata for AY 2015-16. 13. 29.12.2017 Assessment order framed u/s. 143(3)of the Act by ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata for AY 2015-16 ITA Nos.1037 & 1038/Bang/2019 16. According to the revenue as per section 127of the Act, which deals with transfer of jurisdiction

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

12. Section 12AA also provides the circumstances under which registration can be cancelled. We are of the considered opinion that there was no such conditions exist for the cancellation of registration due to the fact of late filing of Return as well as late filing of Audit for the assessment year under appeal. It is only the Finance

ITO, HASSAN vs. M/S VOKKALIGARA SANGHA, BELUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2009-10 are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

10 TTJ 144 relied on by the assessee. The issue that was considered by the learned CIT (Appeals) in these appeals was whether the voluntary contributions received from the specific purpose of construction of ‘Kalyana Mantap’ is falling within the definition of income under Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the common order

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

10 of 18 unutilised in the account of the assessee-trust was not relevant. The amount could not be said to be "income" and could not be included as part of the assessable income of the trust under the provisions of Section 12(2)." In Yet another judgment in the case of Sukhdeo Charity Estate (supra), the Honourable Rajasthan High

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

10 of 18 unutilised in the account of the assessee-trust was not relevant. The amount could not be said to be "income" and could not be included as part of the assessable income of the trust under the provisions of Section 12(2)." In Yet another judgment in the case of Sukhdeo Charity Estate (supra), the Honourable Rajasthan High

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires'. Since the time limit for passing of the order by the TPO is not direct but is linked with the time limit as per section 153, the legislature did not insert any sunset clause in section 153, which would have otherwise made the provision of sub-section

THE ARCHDIOCESAN BOARD OF EDUCATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. The Archdiocesan The Deputy Board Of Education, Commissioner Of Archbishop’S House, No. 75 Income Tax Vs. Millers Road, Benson Town, (Exemptions), Bangalore – 560 046. Circle – 1, Pan: Aabat5296P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

12. From the material on record, it is noticed that in respect of the assessment year 1991-92, which is under consideration, the last, date for filing of the return was 30/10/1991. However, no such return was filed by the appellant before the said date. Subsequently, on 24/2/1992, a search was conducted in the premises of the appellant under Section

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NOUS INFO SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaramani.T.A No.63/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -5(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Nous Info Systems P. Ltd, No.1, 1St Main, 1St Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 004 .. Respondent Pan : Aaacn4584B Assessee By : Shri. Ujwal Tiwari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Vijaykumar N, Addl. Cit Heard On : 14.09.2016 Pronounced On : 11 .11.2016 O R D E R Per S. Jayaraman:

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer ('AO') made, inter alia, the following adjustments: • Deduction under section 10A at Rs.3,590,789/- has been considered based on original return of income, instead of the claim made at Rs.3,993,274/- as per revised return of income. • Carry forward of business losses at Rs.12,378,310/- has not been considered. 2.3. Aggrieved

M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B.V. INDIA BRANCH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2572/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, Mahatma Gandhi International Taxation, Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 31.12.2015 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. —India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant'), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Learned Ao') Dated October 15, 2019 Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 23, 2019 Issued By The Drp U/S 144C(5) Of The Act ('The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds:

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner as provided in sub-section (12) of section 144BA. Page 10

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

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

10. For A. Y. 2011 – 12, the details of earlier assessment order, if any, is not available in the assessment order passed u/s 153A but in Para 2 of this assessment order, this is noted that return of income was filed on 29.09.2011 declaring nil income and as per page 14 of the assessment order, total income was computed

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

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

10. For A. Y. 2011 – 12, the details of earlier assessment order, if any, is not available in the assessment order passed u/s 153A but in Para 2 of this assessment order, this is noted that return of income was filed on 29.09.2011 declaring nil income and as per page 14 of the assessment order, total income was computed

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE , BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

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

10. For A. Y. 2011 – 12, the details of earlier assessment order, if any, is not available in the assessment order passed u/s 153A but in Para 2 of this assessment order, this is noted that return of income was filed on 29.09.2011 declaring nil income and as per page 14 of the assessment order, total income was computed

M/S. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

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

10. For A. Y. 2011 – 12, the details of earlier assessment order, if any, is not available in the assessment order passed u/s 153A but in Para 2 of this assessment order, this is noted that return of income was filed on 29.09.2011 declaring nil income and as per page 14 of the assessment order, total income was computed

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

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

10. For A. Y. 2011 – 12, the details of earlier assessment order, if any, is not available in the assessment order passed u/s 153A but in Para 2 of this assessment order, this is noted that return of income was filed on 29.09.2011 declaring nil income and as per page 14 of the assessment order, total income was computed

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

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

10. For A. Y. 2011 – 12, the details of earlier assessment order, if any, is not available in the assessment order passed u/s 153A but in Para 2 of this assessment order, this is noted that return of income was filed on 29.09.2011 declaring nil income and as per page 14 of the assessment order, total income was computed

M/S RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all these seven appeals are partly allowed in the terms indicated above

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

10. For A. Y. 2011 – 12, the details of earlier assessment order, if any, is not available in the assessment order passed u/s 153A but in Para 2 of this assessment order, this is noted that return of income was filed on 29.09.2011 declaring nil income and as per page 14 of the assessment order, total income was computed

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

reassessment has made an addition of Rs. 9,87,652/ - as 23 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. income since the Trust is not registered under section 12A of the Act, therefore the benefit available under section 11 of the Act is not available to the Trust. The learned assessing officer has further held that the above receipts i.e. hundi