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

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

reassessment\nproceedings and submitted his response on various dates and\ntherefore there is no necessity to invoke the provision of section 144\nof the Act. It is immaterial whether the AO has passed the order\nu/s.143(3) or 144 of the Act, when there is a return and the AO\nwanted to disallow some claim, it is mandatory

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment proceedings and submitted his response on various dates and therefore there is no necessity to invoke the provision of section 144 of the Act. It is immaterial whether the AO has passed the order u/s. 143(3) or 144 of the Act, when there is a return and the AO wanted to disallow some claim, it is mandatory

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment proceedings and submitted his response on various dates and therefore there is no necessity to invoke the provision of section 144 of the Act. It is immaterial whether the AO has passed the order u/s. 143(3) or 144 of the Act, when there is a return and the AO wanted to disallow some claim, it is mandatory

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

30,800/-. Thus, from its Gross Income of Rs 5,71,54,412/- these are allowable deductions. The Balance Rs.60,24,612/- is the Net surplus income. This is also exempt U/sec 11(l)(a) as it is (10.54%) below the general Threshold of 15% of Gross Income specified in this section. Shri Hingulambika Education Society, Gulbarga Page

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 order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where

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

30. We are entirely in agreement with the judgment of the Gujarat High Court especially the observation that the judgment of the Supreme Court is not restricted only to the investments made by the assessee from the amounts retained by it which were payable to its members and that the judgment also applies in respect of other funds not immediately

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)

30 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\nthe reason that the assessee had invested the surplus funds in the\nsecurities and earned exempt income when the assessee had borrowed\nfunds from the banks and therefore the assessee had not utilised the\nsurplus funds for investing in the business and invested the said amount in\nthe securities and earned exempt income

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

2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis that has rejected the Assessee’s contention of ‘bonafide belief’. (Page 13-14 of the CIT(A)’s order) - The CIT(A) has rejected the judicial

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

2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis that has rejected the Assessee’s contention of ‘bonafide belief’. (Page 13-14 of the CIT(A)’s order) - The CIT(A) has rejected the judicial

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

2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis that has rejected the Assessee’s contention of ‘bonafide belief’. (Page 13-14 of the CIT(A)’s order) - The CIT(A) has rejected the judicial

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

2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis that has rejected the Assessee’s contention of ‘bonafide belief’. (Page 13-14 of the CIT(A)’s order) - The CIT(A) has rejected the judicial

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 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\n221 (SC) page 112-141 of case law\nproceedings/ during the course of\ncompilation wherein the SC (at page 117)\nreassessment proceedings.\nhas dealt with the aspect of 'reasonable\nReference to Explanation 3 to section\ncause". The Supreme Court has held that\n271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld\nwhere there are contradictory judicial\n(Page 10/11

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/ during the course of\nreassessment proceedings.\nReference to Explanation 3 to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld\n(Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nIn addition to the above, legal\nsubmissions, it is submitted that IBM\nIndia has reported such receipts in 3CEB\nExplanation 3 refers to the term\n'reasonable cause'. Reliance

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/ during the course of\nreassessment proceedings.\nReference to Explanation 3 to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld\n(Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nIn addition to the above, legal\nsubmissions, it is submitted that IBM\nIndia has reported such receipts in 3CEB\nExplanation 3 refers to the term\n'reasonable cause'. Reliance

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/ during the course of\nreassessment proceedings.\nReference to Explanation 3 to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld\n(Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nIn addition to the above, legal\nsubmissions, it is submitted that IBM\nIndia has reported such receipts in 3CEB\nExplanation 3 refers to the term\n'reasonable cause'. Reliance

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/ during the course of\nreassessment proceedings.\nReference to Explanation 3 to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld\n(Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nThe CIT(A) has contended that mere\nacceptance of tax liability will not\npreclude the levy of the penalty on the\nassessee.\nThe CIT(A) has relied

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

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