INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub-section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub-section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub-section (1) of Section 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11)No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

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

reassessed under section 147 of the Act. 3.5 Subsequent to the above, the issue on taxability payments to seconded employees was revisited in the Hon’ble Delhi HC decision in the case of Centrica India Offshore (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi HC) dated 25 April 2014, wherein the said issue was held against the assessee

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

reassessed under section 147 of the Act. 3.5 Subsequent to the above, the issue on taxability payments to seconded employees was revisited in the Hon’ble Delhi HC decision in the case of Centrica India Offshore (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi HC) dated 25 April 2014, wherein the said issue was held against the assessee

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

reassessed under section 147 of the Act. 3.5 Subsequent to the above, the issue on taxability payments to seconded employees was revisited in the Hon’ble Delhi HC decision in the case of Centrica India Offshore (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi HC) dated 25 April 2014, wherein the said issue was held against the assessee

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

reassessed under section 147 of the Act. 3.5 Subsequent to the above, the issue on taxability payments to seconded employees was revisited in the Hon’ble Delhi HC decision in the case of Centrica India Offshore (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi HC) dated 25 April 2014, wherein the said issue was held against the assessee

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

37 of the Act. 3.1 The assessee, in the application for admission of additional ground of appeal, argued that the issues raised may not arise from the appellate order but the same are fundamental and necessary to correctly assessee the tax liability to the resolution of the case. Consequently, the assessee's learned AR requested that the additional ground

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

37 of the Act. 3.1 The assessee, in the application for admission of additional ground of appeal, argued that the issues raised may not arise from the appellate order but the same are fundamental and necessary to correctly assessee the tax liability to the resolution of the case. Consequently, the assessee's learned AR requested that the additional ground

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

37 of the Act. 3.1 The assessee, in the application for admission of additional ground of appeal, argued that the issues raised may not arise from the appellate order but the same are fundamental and necessary to correctly assessee the tax liability to the resolution of the case. Consequently, the assessee's learned AR requested that the additional ground

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

37 of the Act.\n3.1 The assessee, in the application for admission of additional\nground of appeal, argued that the issues raised may not arise from the\nappellate order but the same are fundamental and necessary to correctly\nassessee the tax liability to the resolution of the case. Consequently, the\nassessee's learned AR requested that the additional ground

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

37 of the Act.\n3.1 The assessee, in the application for admission of additional\nground of appeal, argued that the issues raised may not arise from the\nappellate order but the same are fundamental and necessary to correctly\nassessee the tax liability to the resolution of the case. Consequently, the\nassessee's learned AR requested that the additional ground

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

37 of the\nAct was considered under reported is in consequence of\nmisreporting of income under section 270A(2) rws 270(9) of the Act.\n5.2 For the purpose of evaluating the correctness of rival\nsubmissions addressed we deem it apposite to extract section 270A\n& 270AA of the Act herein below:\n270A. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

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

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

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

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Roy

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

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

section 10(2) (xv) is permissible in law and has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal. " (p. 238) We are in respectful agreement with the said view expressed by the Gauhati High Court. We, therefore, answer question No. 5 in the negative, i. e. , in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” 40. Thus, respectfully following the decision