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)

144 of the Act after considering the documents/material available before him and computed the gross total income at Rs.3,73,98,834/- as under: - Income from House property Rs.3,48,933 Income from Business Rs.3,12,000 Add: Income from Other sources Rs.5,35,221 Add: Unexplained cash credits in bank accounts Rs.1,12,02,680 Add: Unexplained capital accretion

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

reassessment notices under section 149 operate retrospectively for three years for all situations and six years in case the escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to more than rupees fifty lakhs." (Emphasis supplied) 5. The High Court of Delhi in two of the judgments has followed the said judgment of the Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal supra

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

144 taxmann.com was issued, initiating the reassessment proceedings/ during the course of 221 (SC) – page 112-141 of case law reassessment proceedings. compilation wherein the SC (at page 117) - Reference to Explanation 3 to section has dealt with the aspect of ‘reasonable 271(1

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

144 taxmann.com was issued, initiating the reassessment proceedings/ during the course of 221 (SC) – page 112-141 of case law reassessment proceedings. compilation wherein the SC (at page 117) - Reference to Explanation 3 to section has dealt with the aspect of ‘reasonable 271(1

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

144 taxmann.com was issued, initiating the reassessment proceedings/ during the course of 221 (SC) – page 112-141 of case law reassessment proceedings. compilation wherein the SC (at page 117) - Reference to Explanation 3 to section has dealt with the aspect of ‘reasonable 271(1

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

144 taxmann.com was issued, initiating the reassessment proceedings/ during the course of 221 (SC) – page 112-141 of case law reassessment proceedings. compilation wherein the SC (at page 117) - Reference to Explanation 3 to section has dealt with the aspect of ‘reasonable 271(1

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. - Reference to Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order) - The CIT(A) has contended that mere acceptance of tax liability will not preclude the levy of the penalty on the assessee. - The CIT(A) has relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court

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

reassessment notice issued under section 148 in a case where the original assessment was made under section 143(1) cannot be challenged on the ground of a mere change of opinion, still it is open to an assessee to challenge the notice on the ground that there is no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

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

reassessment notice issued under section 148 in a case where the original assessment was made under section 143(1) cannot be challenged on the ground of a mere change of opinion, still it is open to an assessee to challenge the notice on the ground that there is no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

reassessment proceedings. 3.4 The revenue has sought to place reliance upon the decision in the case of Abhishek Jain v. Income-tax officer, Ward-55(1), New Delhi [2018] 405 ITR 1 (Delhi) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 11844 OF 2016 JUNE 1, 2018, for the proposition that the jurisdiction cannot be questioned after a month of issuance

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

reassessment proceedings. Reference to Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order) In addition to the above, legal submissions, it is submitted that IBM India has reported such receipts in 3CEB Explanation 3 refers to the term 'reasonable cause'. Reliance can be placed on decision

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. BLUELINE FOODS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, MANGALURU

144 to show cause why the assessment should\nnot be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing\nOfficer, whichever is earlier.\"\nThus, section 124 of the Act pertains to territorial jurisdiction of an\nAssessing Officer vested under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 120.\nAn objection to such jurisdiction can be raised in terms of section

KRISHNAMURTHY L/R BY SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. Krishnamurthy, Vs. Dcit, Represented By His Lr Smt. Nagarathnamma, Circle –2(1), No.152, 2Nd Floor, Hanuman Chambers, Bangalore. 7Th Cross, 2Nd Main, Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018. Pan : Admpk 2463 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar S. V, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

1), the I.T.O. cannot proceed to make ex parte assessment under Section 144 without serving notice under Section 139(2) or as the case may be under Section 148. This circular is binding on the assessing officer. Page 8 of 9 14. On the facts of the present case, when the assessee filed a defective return, and did not rectify

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings. Reference to Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order) In addition to the above, legal submissions, it is submitted that IBM India has reported such receipts in 3CEB Explanation 3 refers to the term 'reasonable cause'. Reliance can be placed on decision

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings. Reference to Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order) In addition to the above, legal submissions, it is submitted that IBM India has reported such receipts in 3CEB Explanation 3 refers to the term 'reasonable cause'. Reliance can be placed on decision

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

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

COMPAGNIE IBM FRANCE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

reassessment proceedings. Reference to Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order) In addition to the above, legal submissions, it is submitted that IBM India has reported such receipts in 3CEB Explanation 3 refers to the term 'reasonable cause'. Reliance can be placed on decision

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

reassessment proceedings. Reference to Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order) In addition to the above, legal submissions, it is submitted that IBM India has reported such receipts in 3CEB Explanation 3 refers to the term 'reasonable cause'. Reliance can be placed on decision