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

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 for AY 2011-12 which had attained finality - Plethora of judicial precedents

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

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 for AY 2011-12 which had attained finality - Plethora of judicial precedents

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

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 for AY 2011-12 which had attained finality - Plethora of judicial precedents

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

3 to this paper book. Subsequently the Appellant was served notice under substituted section 148A of the Act and reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 were reopened and the issue under consideration was the same as it was in earlier reassessment proceedings. The copy of the show cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 02.06.2022 is attached

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

Section 153D despite\nthe Learned AO's erroneous statement that the case of the\nassessee was centralized with the DCIT Central Circle-2, vide\nOrder of the Pr. CIT, Mangalore in F.No./C-13/Pr.CIT/MNG/2020-\n21 dated 28.07.2021 in all the assessment orders for AYs\n2017-18 to 2020-21. As per the department's own records, the\ncentralization was ordered

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

145).\nIt is not the case of Revenue also, the ld. counsel for the\nassessee argued, that the survey conducted u/s.133A of the Act\nin the case of the assessee was subsequently converted into a\nsearch u/s.132 of the Act. He argued that issue of warrant of\nauthorization by the competent authority is a necessary\nprecondition for initiation of search

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

145,41,60,713/-\nTotal funds transferred from charitable trust, RECT to\ntrustees (Amount in Rs.)\n145,41,60,713/-\n6.1.1 The assessee trust has furnished a detailed explanation to counter the above\nallegation. The Assessee Trust (RECT) vide its written submissions has admitted to\nthe factual position, however, it has vehemently denied that above constitutes\n\"diversion of funds

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n\n5. 1. The Assessee filed the original return of income

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

145,41,60,713/- Total funds transferred from charitable trust, RECT to\n145,41,60,713/- trustees (Amount in Rs.)\n6.1.1 The assessee trust has furnished a detailed explanation to counter the above\nallegation. The Assessee Trust (RECT) vide its written submissions has admitted to\nthe factual position, however, it has vehemently denied that above constitutes\n"diversion of funds

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

145,41,60,713/-\nTotal funds transferred from charitable trust, RECT to\n145,41,60,713/-\ntrustees (Amount in Rs.)\n6.1.1 The assessee trust has furnished a detailed explanation to counter the above\nallegation. The Assessee Trust (RECT) vide its written submissions has admitted to\nthe factual position, however, it has vehemently denied that above constitutes\n\"diversion of funds

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

145/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 3. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [i]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

145/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 3. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [i]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

145/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 3. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [i]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

145/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 3. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [i]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection 139(5)\n5.1. The Assessee filed the original return of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

section 133(6) from the Lokayukta by the AO and he observed that there is difference in the jewellery declared. Therefore, the information received from the Lokayukta is part and parcel of the incriminating documents found during the course of search. The assessee has not explained the apparent discrepancies in his own statements on affidavit before the statutory authorities

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to\n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

reassess taking into\nconsideration the other material in respect of\ncompleted/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of\ncompleted/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the\nAO in absence of any incriminating material found during the\nsearch under section 132 or requisition u/s 132A of the Act, 1961.\nHowever, the completed/unabated assessments can be reopened\nby the AO in exercise

MOHAMMED BASHEER BAIRIKATTE HOSAMANE,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

reassessment proceedings u/s 147, the AO observed various anomalies on the submissions made by the assessee. The assessee did not produce various basic details to support his expenditures claimed even for purchase and sales register, salary ledge and other expenditures were not filed. Therefore, he rightly invoked provision of section 145(3