MAKINO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

5,67,99,082 While computing the ‘book profits’ under Section 115JB of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered the amount of Rs.64,34,368 as being the lesser of business losses or unabsorbed depreciation. 12.2.2 However, in the reassessment order passed under Section 144 rws 147 of the Act dt.29.12.2009, the Assessing Officer considered an amount of Rs.1

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

5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be apposite to have a glance at the relevant provisions in this regard. 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

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.936,90,65,332 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the computation of income filed with the return. The AO observed that as per section 36(1)(viia), assessee is eligible to get deduction to the extent of 7.5% of total income before

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.936,90,65,332 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the computation of income filed with the return. The AO observed that as per section 36(1)(viia), assessee is eligible to get deduction to the extent of 7.5% of total income before

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

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment order passed by the Assessing IT(TP)A No.1537/Bang/2012 Page 8 of 58 Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner under sub- section (12) of section 144BA. (15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board 5 for this purpose; (b) "eligible

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires.. 6.3. It transpires from a reading of the above provision that where a reference is made to the TPO after 1.6.2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before 60 days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires.. 6.3. It transpires from a reading of the above provision that where a reference is made to the TPO after 1.6.2007, an order under sub-section (3) may be made at any time before 60 days prior to the date on which the period of limitation referred

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (LTU),, BENGALURU vs. M/S. VIJAYA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

10A of the Act based on the assessment order relating to the assessment year 2007-08 is without application of mind and nothing but change of opinion, which tantamounts to review and the same is not permissible to initiate the proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act. 41. It is also significant to note that there is no iota

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

5 (SC,) Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax: In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely because material lies embedded in material or evidence, which Assessing Officer could have uncovered but did not uncover, is not a good ground to deny or strike down a notice for reassessment 11. In this context

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-4 , BANGALORE vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment order passed by the learned AO under section 143(3) read with section 147 be quashed or in the alternative, the disallowance confirmed under section 40(a)(i) be deleted, payments made to AEs be held as not liable TDS under section 195 and interest levied under section 234B and 234C be deleted. The appellant prays accordingly

M/S RAMSOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Ramsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. No.104A, 4Th Cross, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore-561229. … Appellant Pa No.Aaacr 6948 R Vs. Deputy Commisioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. … Respondent

reassessment is bad in law. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) could not have recorded the reason that the income has escaped assessment because of the loss of the earlier year have to be set-off before allowing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act, as the Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore Bench had held that such

BANGALORE RAJU MUDALIAR MOHAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 10(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by both the years under consideration stands allowed

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

reassessment proceedings on a mere change of opinion. It was also contended that the primary facts necessary for assessment were fully and truly disclosed and that in the absence of any findings recorded by the Assessing Officer that the assessee did not make full and true disclosure, the reopening of assessment would be a case of change of opinion

BANGALORE RAJU MUDALIAR MOHAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 10(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by both the years under consideration stands allowed

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

reassessment proceedings on a mere change of opinion. It was also contended that the primary facts necessary for assessment were fully and truly disclosed and that in the absence of any findings recorded by the Assessing Officer that the assessee did not make full and true disclosure, the reopening of assessment would be a case of change of opinion

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

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

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 as capital expenditure in spite of the fact that the payment

TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

reassessment as the same is based on material already on Page 3 of 17 record without bringing on record any additional material and thus constitutes change of opinion c) the aspect of the quantum of deduction under section 10A was already examined under original assessment order and therefore could not be reexamined for any new reason. 5

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

In the result, grounds 10 and 11 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires.” 8.1 From the perusal of the above section 92CA(3A) of the I.T.Act, it can be seen that the TPO can pass an order at any time before 60 days prior to the due date u/s 153 of the I.T.Act for passing the assessment order. Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. UNISYS INDIA PVT LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, grounds 10 and 11 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires.” 8.1 From the perusal of the above section 92CA(3A) of the I.T.Act, it can be seen that the TPO can pass an order at any time before 60 days prior to the due date u/s 153 of the I.T.Act for passing the assessment order. Section