SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

10(38) qua long term capital gain ('LTCG') of Rs.\n22,55,37,300/- arising from sale of bonus shares. The Assessee\nwas issued a notice under section 148 of the Act by the learned\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) (“AO”) on\n31.03.2021 to reassess

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR 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

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , 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

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 that during the search, registers containing details of ICDs given by the assessee to various parties against collateral in the form of property at varying rates of interest was seized and the assessee was not offering interest on all these ICDs on accrual basis. Hence, it is not acceptable that no incriminating material was found and therefore, we find

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 that during the search, registers containing details of ICDs given by the assessee to various parties against collateral in the form of property at varying rates of interest was seized and the assessee was not offering interest on all these ICDs on accrual basis. Hence, it is not acceptable that no incriminating material was found and therefore, we find

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 that during the search, registers containing details of ICDs given by the assessee to various parties against collateral in the form of property at varying rates of interest was seized and the assessee was not offering interest on all these ICDs on accrual basis. Hence, it is not acceptable that no incriminating material was found and therefore, we find

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 that during the search, registers containing details of ICDs given by the assessee to various parties against collateral in the form of property at varying rates of interest was seized and the assessee was not offering interest on all these ICDs on accrual basis. Hence, it is not acceptable that no incriminating material was found and therefore, we find

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 that during the search, registers containing details of ICDs given by the assessee to various parties against collateral in the form of property at varying rates of interest was seized and the assessee was not offering interest on all these ICDs on accrual basis. Hence, it is not acceptable that no incriminating material was found and therefore, we find

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 that during the search, registers containing details of ICDs given by the assessee to various parties against collateral in the form of property at varying rates of interest was seized and the assessee was not offering interest on all these ICDs on accrual basis. Hence, it is not acceptable that no incriminating material was found and therefore, we find

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 that during the search, registers containing details of ICDs given by the assessee to various parties against collateral in the form of property at varying rates of interest was seized and the assessee was not offering interest on all these ICDs on accrual basis. Hence, it is not acceptable that no incriminating material was found and therefore, we find

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

10(38) qua long term capital gain ('LTCG') of Rs.\n22,55,37,300/- arising from sale of bonus shares. The Assessee\nwas issued a notice under section 148 of the Act by the learned\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) (“AO”) on\n31.03.2021 to reassess

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

38,920/- [ Rs.55,56,54,057/- (revenue expenditure) + Rs. 8,11,20,826/- (capital expenditure)] which amounts to claim of double deduction & the same is accepted by the assessee on the I. Tax web portal. It is worthwhile here to note that once the Auditor uploads the audit report on the I. Tax Web Portal from his professional

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

reassessment proceedings. the aspect of ‘reasonable cause”. IBM - Reference to Explanation 3 to section foreign entities had reasonable cause to 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld not offer the receipts to tax in the return under section 139 of the Act basis: - (Page 10-11 of the CIT(A)’s order) IBM Corp’s assessment order

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

reassessment proceedings. the aspect of ‘reasonable cause”. IBM - Reference to Explanation 3 to section foreign entities had reasonable cause to 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld not offer the receipts to tax in the return under section 139 of the Act basis: - (Page 10-11 of the CIT(A)’s order) IBM Corp’s assessment order

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

reassessment proceedings. the aspect of ‘reasonable cause”. IBM - Reference to Explanation 3 to section foreign entities had reasonable cause to 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld not offer the receipts to tax in the return under section 139 of the Act basis: - (Page 10-11 of the CIT(A)’s order) IBM Corp’s assessment order