SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings because the Assessing Officer failed to make out a case within the four corners of the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (DELHI) held as under:- “8. Thus, if authority is given expressly

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

J. Abraham Anthraper : [TS-5230-HC- 2004(Kerala)-O] - Vijay Omprakash Bansal v. CIT : [TS-6051-HC- 2001(Bombay)-O] - CIT v. L.G Balakrishnan: [TS-5374-HC- 2001(Madras)-O] - CIT v. Quantas Airlines Ltd.: [TS-5297-HC- 2002(Delhi)-O] - Southern Roadways Ltd. vs. CWT: [TS-5676-HC- 2000(Madras)-O] 22.34 Having regard to the legal position discussed

SMT.VIDYA DEVI LADHANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

reassessment can be made. In case of completed assessments on the date of search, the assessment under Section 153A can be made only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of document or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

J. in Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1921] 1 KB 64 (KB) at page 71, that:\n" ........in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read

KRISHNAMURTHY L/R BY SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. Krishnamurthy, Vs. Dcit, Represented By His Lr Smt. Nagarathnamma, Circle –2(1), No.152, 2Nd Floor, Hanuman Chambers, Bangalore. 7Th Cross, 2Nd Main, Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018. Pan : Admpk 2463 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar S. V, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ravishankar S. V, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 22.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order passed by the CIT(A) vide DIN &Order No: ITBA/APL/M/250/2023-24/1072548858

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.936,90,65,332 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the computation of income filed with the return. The AO observed that as per section 36(1)(viia), assessee is eligible to get deduction to the extent of 7.5% of total income before

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.936,90,65,332 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the computation of income filed with the return. The AO observed that as per section 36(1)(viia), assessee is eligible to get deduction to the extent of 7.5% of total income before

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

27,60,543/- IT(TP)A No.725/Bang/2018 Asst.Yr.2013-14 • SEZ-Chennai - Rs. 72,97,71,716/- • SEZ-Hydrabad - Rs. 46,44,58,385/- • SEZ-Pune - Rs.1,25,36,40,014/- • SEZ-Kolkata - Rs. 18,44,50,860/- • SEZ-Gurgaon - Rs. 8,22,33,583/- • SEZ-Mumbai - Rs. 4,08,00,128/- 6.6. After entering into APA, income of assessee

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

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J 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

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

27-12-2012 No No order u/s Assessment Assessment Assessment 143(3) dated: order passed order passed order passed Time Limit to 30-09-2010 30-09-2012 30-09-2013 30-09-2014 issue 143(2) notice ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 78 38. Therefore, according to the ld. AR, assessments for these 4 years were already completed

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

27-12-2012 No No order u/s Assessment Assessment Assessment 143(3) dated: order passed order passed order passed Time Limit to 30-09-2010 30-09-2012 30-09-2013 30-09-2014 issue 143(2) notice ITA Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 9 of 78 38. Therefore, according to the ld. AR, assessments for these 4 years were already completed

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

27, 2002 under section 132A of the\nAct requisitioning the books of accounts and other documents seized\nby the Central Excise Department. The record of the proceeding dated\nApril 18, 2002 showed that the requisition was not fully executed as\nall the books of account and other documents had not been delivered\nto the requisitioning authority. The proceedings initiated under

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

J. Agarwal, ITA no.465 of 2014, judgment dated 26 th September 2016, 243 Taxmann 119 (Bombay HC) the Hon'ble High Court has made it clear that any sum received under the assigned Keyman Insurance Policy prior to assessment year 2014- 15, would be eligible for exemption under section 10(10D) of the Act, as the amendment in Explanation

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

j) is not credited to the statement of profit and loss, and as reduced by,— (i) the amount withdrawn from any reserve or provision (excluding a reserve created before the 1st day of April, 1997 otherwise than by way of a debit to the statement of profit and loss), if any such amount is credited to the statement of profit

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

j) is not credited to the statement of profit and loss, and as reduced by,— (i) the amount withdrawn from any reserve or provision (excluding a reserve created before the 1st day of April, 1997 otherwise than by way of a debit to the statement of profit and loss), if any such amount is credited to the statement of profit

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

reassess the income of the appellant and consequently the notice issued under section 153A of the Act is invalid and the entire assessment proceedings is bad in law and void ab initio on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

27 of 104 section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub- section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner. Therefore, the intention of the legislation seems to be that in case