DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

15) Assessee's submissions may be accepted." 9. Thus, from perusal of the report submitted by the Assessing Officer himself, it is evident that, if the Remand Report is accepted with regard to long term capital gains, then addition as income from other sources and income from other sources is also accepted, therefore, the question of law framed in this

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

15% of Gross Income specified in this section. Shri Hingulambika Education Society, Gulbarga Page 4 of 42 The expression 'Applied' is explained in Radhasoami 2.3 Satsang Sabha (1954) 25 ITR 473 (Allahabad). Thus, as the Assessee has complied all the Provisions of Sec 11, including Form 10-B Audit Report for the relevant year, it is entitled to Sec.11 exemption

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment proceedings ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 23 after noting that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee pursuant to the filing of the return. In other words, it was held mandatory to serve the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act only after

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment proceedings ITA Nos.823 to 824/Bang/2025 Intact Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 23 after noting that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not issued to the Assessee pursuant to the filing of the return. In other words, it was held mandatory to serve the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act only after

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

15 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

15 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him. (2) Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case

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 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

15 &16 of the CIT(A)’s order) - The CIT(A) has contended that the Provisions of section 195(2)/ 197 of the explanations offered by the Assessee are Act are not mandatory and therefore the not bonafide since no application under AO cannot be expected to seek recourse section 197 was presented by the to the same. - Assessee

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

15 &16 of the CIT(A)’s order) - The CIT(A) has contended that the Provisions of section 195(2)/ 197 of the explanations offered by the Assessee are Act are not mandatory and therefore the not bonafide since no application under AO cannot be expected to seek recourse section 197 was presented by the to the same. - Assessee

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

15 &16 of the CIT(A)’s order) - The CIT(A) has contended that the Provisions of section 195(2)/ 197 of the explanations offered by the Assessee are Act are not mandatory and therefore the not bonafide since no application under AO cannot be expected to seek recourse section 197 was presented by the to the same. - Assessee

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

15 &16 of the CIT(A)’s order) - The CIT(A) has contended that the Provisions of section 195(2)/ 197 of the explanations offered by the Assessee are Act are not mandatory and therefore the not bonafide since no application under AO cannot be expected to seek recourse section 197 was presented by the to the same. - Assessee

SHARANABASAVESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKRI NI HALINGALI,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BIJAPUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

15 of 18 220/12 taxmann.com 66. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the appellate authorities denying the benefit of deduction of the aforesaid amount is unsustainable in law. Accordingly it is hereby set aside. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Hence, we pass the following order

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)

15) wherein it was held that AO should record exact\nexpenditure incurred to earn exempt income. Hence the Learned AO\nPage 48 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\nhas made disallowance under Section 14A on a wrong notion that\nthe disallowance is presumptive in nature even when the\nexpenditure is not actually incurred.\n6. 6. It is submitted that

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

2 Pg.\n629}.\n4.11. Hence the approval under 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

IBM CANADA 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

reassessment\nproceedings.\nThe CIT(A) has distinguished the facts\nof the case from Karnataka HC's\nruling in Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory [2013] 35\nTaxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A(2

IBM CHINA HONG KONG LIMITED,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

reassessment\nproceedings.\nThe CIT(A) has distinguished the facts\nof the case from Karnataka HC's\nruling in Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory [2013] 35\nTaxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A(2

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

reassessment\nproceedings.\nThe CIT(A) has distinguished the facts\nof the case from Karnataka HC's\nruling in Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory [2013] 35\nTaxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A(2

IBM JAPAN 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

reassessment\nproceedings.\nThe CIT(A) has distinguished the facts\nof the case from Karnataka HC's\nruling in Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory [2013] 35\nTaxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A(2

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

2) and section 197 of the Act are\nin the nature of safeguard sections to\nmake sure that taxes are rightfully\ndeducted on payments.\nTherefore, the same isn't sufficient\nground to contend that the Assessee's\nconduct is not bonafide.\nDeduction under section 192 of the Act\nestablishes\nemployer-employee\nrelationship and is therefore relevant.\nThis aspect has also