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

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

reassessment. Accordingly, the AO prepared draft Assessment Order under section 144C of the Act vide Order dated 31.03.2022 and issued to the assessee. Since assessee is a non- resident, therefore, the case was taken up by the International Taxation Department. The assessee did not challenge the draft Assessment Order passed under section 144C of the Act before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

reassessment is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Monarch Educational Society V. ITO (Exemption) (2015) 57 Taxmann.com 141 (Delhi) wherein it is held that, simply reproducing details received from Director of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

reassessment is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Monarch Educational Society V. ITO (Exemption) (2015) 57 Taxmann.com 141 (Delhi) wherein it is held that, simply reproducing details received from Director of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

reassessment is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Monarch Educational Society V. ITO (Exemption) (2015) 57 Taxmann.com 141 (Delhi) wherein it is held that, simply reproducing details received from Director of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY vs. SHRI. HOTHUR MOHAMED IQBAL, BALLARI

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

164 ITD 104, wherein held that an amount of keyman insurance policy is not taxable policy in his favour but at the time of actual receipt. 2. Naresh Kumar Trehan ITA No.3882/Del/2013 for assessment year 2008-09 dated 10.1.2014 wherein held that:- "Thus, the issue depends on the question as to whether on assignment of the insurance policy

MRS. SHARON NAYAK,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No.1594/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Mrs. Sharon Nayak, 203, Inland Exotic Apt, 14, Benson Road, Bangalore 560 046 .. Appellant Pan : Abkpn7007P V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Revenue By : Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. Cit Heard On : 05.05.2016 Pronounced On : 27.05.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

164(1)(iv) of the Act applied was incorrect, since case of the assessee fell under Section 161 of the Act. Further as per the Ld. AR, view taken by the CIT (A) that trust and beneficiary were two legal entities were incorrect by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Managing Trustees, Nagore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK LIMITED, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

reassessment proceedings and the second issue was not accepted by the AO for granting deduction u/s 36(1)(vii)/36(1)(viia) of Act. The assessee raised the issue before the CIT(A) and CIT(A) has also partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. During the course of hearing, the ld.AR vehemently argued on legal issue raised

M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK,DHARWAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

reassessment proceedings and the second issue was not accepted by the AO for granting deduction u/s 36(1)(vii)/36(1)(viia) of Act. The assessee raised the issue before the CIT(A) and CIT(A) has also partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. During the course of hearing, the ld.AR vehemently argued on legal issue raised

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment is quashed on jurisdiction of the AO in framing the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in AY 2013-14, this issue is taken up for adjudication on merits in both the years. 17. From the verification of records, the AO noted that assessee has incurred above expenses towards corporate social responsibility as per Companies

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment is quashed on jurisdiction of the AO in framing the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in AY 2013-14, this issue is taken up for adjudication on merits in both the years. 17. From the verification of records, the AO noted that assessee has incurred above expenses towards corporate social responsibility as per Companies

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

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

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

reassessment proceeding had to be completed. Accordingly, the AO IT(IT)A Nos.191 to 194/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 43 passed the draft assessment order making additions towards royalty income as under:- Asst. Year Amount

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

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

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

reassessment proceeding had to be completed. Accordingly, the AO IT(IT)A Nos.191 to 194/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 43 passed the draft assessment order making additions towards royalty income as under:- Asst. Year Amount

VINOD KUMAR SINGHAL ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

section 147 of the Act, there is only one issue raised on the basis of the reasons recorded is regarding accommodation entries received by the assessee from shelle company and the ld. Pr.CIT has also directed the AO to examine the sale tax penalty of Rs.28,165/- and employees’ contribution to PF and ESI of Rs.8,159/- is not correct

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

reassessment by placing reliance on the order of the TPO for the AY 2010-11. The AO computed the value of preference shares at Rs.270.10 per share and the made an addition of Rs.37,16,41,000 being the difference between the actual premium of Rs.900 per share and premium as computed by the AO @ Rs.270.10 per share

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

reassessment by placing reliance on the order of the TPO for the AY 2010-11. The AO computed the value of preference shares at Rs.270.10 per share and the made an addition of Rs.37,16,41,000 being the difference between the actual premium of Rs.900 per share and premium as computed by the AO @ Rs.270.10 per share

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

reassessment passed under\nclause (b) of section 153A in respect of each assessment year falling\nwithin six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment\nyear relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under\nsection 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. The provision\nhas also been made applicable to orders of assessment passed under\nclause

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

reassessment passed under\nclause (b) of section 153A in respect of each assessment year falling\nwithin six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment\nyear relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under\nsection 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. The provision\nhas also been made applicable to orders of assessment passed under\nclause