ABHERAJ BALDOTA FOUNDATION ,HOSPET vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings, inadvertently allowed deduction of Rs.180.00 lakhs u/s 11(2) of the Act against the above said income of Rs.240.26 lakhs and the same has resulted in net addition of Rs.60.26 lakhs only, asagainst the proposed addition of Rs.91.65 lakhs u/s 11(3) of the Act, i.e., deduction to the extent of Rs.31.40 lakhs (being the shortfall between proposed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

D E R Per: L.P. Sahu, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), 6, Bengaluru in appeal ITA No. 107/R-9/CIT(A)-6/2014-15 dated 26.04.2018 for AY 2012-13 of the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of the CIT (Appeals) is opposed to law and the facts

NEETA BHAMBHANI,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

1. The sanction accorded under section 151 of the Act is bad in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act dt: 10/04/2024 is barred by limitation and consequently the entire proceedings is bad in law, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The notice issued

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

d) of section 148A is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. IT(IT)A No.193/Bang/2025 Arun Duraiswamy, Mysore Page 10 of 23 Explanation.- For the purposes of clause (b) of this sub-section, “asset” shall include immovable

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 IBM Deutschland 501/Bang/2024 During re- 2012- GMBH ("IBM 271(1)(c) Not filed assessment 13 Germany") proceedings 489/Bang/2024 During re- 2012- IBM Canada Limited 271(1)(c) Not filed assessment 13 proceedings BM Osterreich 504/Bang/2024 During re- Internationale assessment 2012- Buromaschinen 271(1)(c) Not filed proceedings 13 Gesellschaft m.b.H ("IBM Austria") 502/Bang/2024 During

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 IBM Deutschland 501/Bang/2024 During re- 2012- GMBH ("IBM 271(1)(c) Not filed assessment 13 Germany") proceedings 489/Bang/2024 During re- 2012- IBM Canada Limited 271(1)(c) Not filed assessment 13 proceedings BM Osterreich 504/Bang/2024 During re- Internationale assessment 2012- Buromaschinen 271(1)(c) Not filed proceedings 13 Gesellschaft m.b.H ("IBM Austria") 502/Bang/2024 During

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 IBM Deutschland 501/Bang/2024 During re- 2012- GMBH ("IBM 271(1)(c) Not filed assessment 13 Germany") proceedings 489/Bang/2024 During re- 2012- IBM Canada Limited 271(1)(c) Not filed assessment 13 proceedings BM Osterreich 504/Bang/2024 During re- Internationale assessment 2012- Buromaschinen 271(1)(c) Not filed proceedings 13 Gesellschaft m.b.H ("IBM Austria") 502/Bang/2024 During

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

reassessment proceedings IBM Deutschland 501/Bang/2024 During re- 2012- GMBH ("IBM 271(1)(c) Not filed assessment 13 Germany") proceedings 489/Bang/2024 During re- 2012- IBM Canada Limited 271(1)(c) Not filed assessment 13 proceedings BM Osterreich 504/Bang/2024 During re- Internationale assessment 2012- Buromaschinen 271(1)(c) Not filed proceedings 13 Gesellschaft m.b.H ("IBM Austria") 502/Bang/2024 During

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

d), for advances given by both rural and non-rural branches. 7.16 In the instant case, the assessee has claimed deduction towards PBDD under clause (a) to sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act, meaning thereby, the clause (a) is applicable to rural advances only as per the decision given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

d), for advances given by both rural and non-rural branches. 7.16 In the instant case, the assessee has claimed deduction towards PBDD under clause (a) to sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act, meaning thereby, the clause (a) is applicable to rural advances only as per the decision given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings IBM Deutschland 2012- 271(1)(c) 501/Bang/2024 During re- GMBH ("IBM Germany") 13 assessment proceedings IBM Canada Limited 2012- 271(1)(c) 489/Bang/2024 Not filed During re- 13 assessment proceedings BM Osterreich Internationale Buromaschinen Gesellschaft m.b.H ("IBM Austria") 2012- 13 271(1)(c) 504/Bang/2024 Not filed During re- assessment proceedings IBM Del Peru SAC 2012- 271(1

RAGHAVAN NAMBATH MENON,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD INTL. TAXATION 1(2), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

11 of 22 subsequently passed on April 18, 2022 after considering the reply filed by the assessee on 11/04/2022. Now, it is apposite here to note down the chronological date of event for a better appreciation of fact which are detailed below- Particulars Date Paper Book reference Last date for issuing notice u/s. 31/03/2022 NA 148 under erstwhile section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

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

11,02,609/- only. 22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the valuation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill appeared artificial and unjustified. According to the AO, the Finacle and Edge-services business was primarily dependent on employees who were ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 53 transferred along with the business, and the skills, technical know

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

11,02,609/- only. 22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the valuation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill appeared artificial and unjustified. According to the AO, the Finacle and Edge-services business was primarily dependent on employees who were ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 53 transferred along with the business, and the skills, technical know

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

11,02,609/- only. 22. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the valuation assigned to technology, business contracts and goodwill appeared artificial and unjustified. According to the AO, the Finacle and Edge-services business was primarily dependent on employees who were ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 53 transferred along with the business, and the skills, technical know

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

11. The ld. AR submitted as stated earlier, the extension was brought in by amendment which is with effect from 01.07.2012. There is nothing in the amendment to indicate retrospectivity in clear terms. As stated earlier, retrospectivity cannot be easily inferred or implied. The Explanation clarifying that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

11. The ld. AR submitted as stated earlier, the extension was brought in by amendment which is with effect from 01.07.2012. There is nothing in the amendment to indicate retrospectivity in clear terms. As stated earlier, retrospectivity cannot be easily inferred or implied. The Explanation clarifying that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance