DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

reassessment order set-aside proceedings under section 263. v. The learned CIT – A has failed to appreciate that in case of set aside assessment under section 263 there is no requirement for issuance of a fresh notice under section 143 (2

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

263 (Del); Hyderabad Industries Ltd. vs. ITO [1991] 188 ITR 749 (Kar) 3.52 The CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2002 dated 28.06.2002 and Circular No. 4 of 2002 dated July 16 2002 ([2002] 256 ITR (St.) 22) states that no tax is required to be deducted in respect of any amounts payable to anybody or authority or institution, whose income

THAYAPPA BALAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

2 to Section 263 of the Act for passing order under Section 263 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax failed to consider the entire replies dated 26.03.2024 in response to the notice issued under Section 263 of the Act and failed to adjudicate all the issues

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

M/S. EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

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

reassessment proceedings by the AO the Hon’ble High Court disposed off the writ petition as having become infructuous. 3) Subsequently the PCIT issued a show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act dated 24.02.2022 proposing to revise the order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the reasons stated below - (i) In relation to the loans

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

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

263 of the Act itself is wrong because the basis for passing of the Assessment Order is invalid in the eyes of law, since the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO before completion of reassessment

M/S. TOKAI RIKA MINDA INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

2(c) of Section 263. Invalid reference by AO to the TPO renders the assessment order non-est in the eye of law, which cannot be revised under Section 263 2.9 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Mumbai Tribunal, in the case of M/s. Essar Shipping Limited, ITA NO.3156/MUM/2018 dated 30.9.2019 has held that an invalid reference

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 to Section 263.of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 states that 'For the purposes of this section, it/s hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, - (a) the order

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

263 of the Act. However, it was held that such a contingency would not justify the power of reassessment being exercised. 38. That then takes us to the aspect of fresh or new factual information that may come to light pursuant to an order of assessment made subsequently. The Full Bench in Usha International held that if new information comes

M/S. SHIVA FERRIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Shiva Ferric Pvt. Ltd., No. 193, 4Th Floor, Shiv The Principal Sadan Outer Ring Road, Commissioner Of B. Narayanapura, Income-Tax [Central], Bangalore – 560 016. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aaics4564L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-01-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

2 to section 263 are not satisfied. 9.The claim made by assessee are thoroughly considered. The addition made by the assessing officer in the reassessment

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

263 of the Act once the proceedings under Section 153A was initiated. The High Court in Canara Housing Development Co. (supra) answered the question in the negative. It referred to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (211Taxman 453 Delhi) and came to the conclusion that once proceedings are initiated under Section 153A

SHRI M. THIMMEGOWDA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

263 of the Act once the proceedings under Section 153A was initiated. The High Court in Canara Housing Development Co. (supra) answered the question in the negative. It referred to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (211Taxman 453 Delhi) and came to the conclusion that once proceedings are initiated under Section 153A

MR. YUNUS ZIA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodia

2 of that judgment, facts are noted and it is noted in this para that in course of search, incriminating material leading to undisclosed income was seized. The question before Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in that case was as under:- “When once the proceedings under Section 153A of the Act is initiated, whether the Commissioner of Income

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

263 nor has been 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

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. JAGADISH N HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

reassessed. To Confer jurisdictionunder section 147(a) two conditions were required to ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 21 of 78 be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains chargeable to income tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that