IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

270(9) of the Act. 5.2 For the purpose of evaluating the correctness of rival submissions addressed we deem it apposite to extract section 270A & 270AA of the Act herein below: 270A. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. (1)The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course

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

reassessment proceedings. IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 31 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - Reference to Explanation 3 to section not file a return under section 139 of the 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld Act 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

reassessment proceedings. IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 31 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - Reference to Explanation 3 to section not file a return under section 139 of the 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld Act basis

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

reassessment proceedings. IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 31 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - Reference to Explanation 3 to section not file a return under section 139 of the 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld Act 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

reassessment proceedings. IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 31 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - Reference to Explanation 3 to section not file a return under section 139 of the 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld Act basis

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings. - Reference to Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order) - The CIT(A) has contended that mere acceptance of tax liability will not preclude the levy of the penalty on the assessee. - The CIT(A) has relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

reassessment proceedings. Reference to Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order) In addition to the above, legal submissions, it is submitted that IBM India has reported such receipts in 3CEB Explanation 3 refers to the term 'reasonable cause'. Reliance can be placed on decision

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

270 • Authorization issued by competent authority on the basis of material in its position — Court cannot examine adequacy or sufficiency of such information under writ jurisdiction. Doctors X-ray and Pathology Institute P. Ltd. Vs DC1T(All.) 318 ITR 125 • Search in Bank and details found — Not a case of collecting information but a case of search in respect

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

270 • Authorization issued by competent authority on the basis of material in its position — Court cannot examine adequacy or sufficiency of such information under writ jurisdiction. Doctors X-ray and Pathology Institute P. Ltd. Vs DC1T(All.) 318 ITR 125 • Search in Bank and details found — Not a case of collecting information but a case of search in respect

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

270 • Authorization issued by competent authority on the basis of material in its position — Court cannot examine adequacy or sufficiency of such information under writ jurisdiction. Doctors X-ray and Pathology Institute P. Ltd. Vs DC1T(All.) 318 ITR 125 • Search in Bank and details found — Not a case of collecting information but a case of search in respect

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

270 • Authorization issued by competent authority on the basis of material in its position — Court cannot examine adequacy or sufficiency of such information under writ jurisdiction. Doctors X-ray and Pathology Institute P. Ltd. Vs DC1T(All.) 318 ITR 125 • Search in Bank and details found — Not a case of collecting information but a case of search in respect

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

270 • Authorization issued by competent authority on the basis of material in its position — Court cannot examine adequacy or sufficiency of such information under writ jurisdiction. Doctors X-ray and Pathology Institute P. Ltd. Vs DC1T(All.) 318 ITR 125 • Search in Bank and details found — Not a case of collecting information but a case of search in respect

WILFRED D'SOUZA,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

270 • Authorization issued by competent authority on the basis of material in its position — Court cannot examine adequacy or sufficiency of such information under writ jurisdiction. Doctors X-ray and Pathology Institute P. Ltd. Vs DC1T(All.) 318 ITR 125 • Search in Bank and details found — Not a case of collecting information but a case of search in respect

SRI. A.S. CHINNASWAMY RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

reassessment. Hence the Assessing Officer was required to to the assessment order. The legal proposition on this point has been analysed in various cases by the Hon'ble High Courts. In the case of General Motor India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had considered the identical issue and made the relevant observations in paras

M/S.VASCULAR CONCEPTS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

270/- based on mere change of opinion without any fresh material. 13. The AO / CIT (A) erred in disallowing discounts given to customers to the extent of Rs. 7,20,94,2019/- based on mere change of opinion without any fresh material. 14. The reasons given by the AO / CIT(A) for disallowing the above are unsustainable and untenable

M/S.VASCULAR CONCEPTS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

270/- based on mere change of opinion without any fresh material. 13. The AO / CIT (A) erred in disallowing discounts given to customers to the extent of Rs. 7,20,94,2019/- based on mere change of opinion without any fresh material. 14. The reasons given by the AO / CIT(A) for disallowing the above are unsustainable and untenable

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 143(2) of the Act is mandatory as per the decision of the various courts. The Pr.CIT has exercised his jurisdicision on the invalid reassessment order, therefore, the order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT is non-est. in the eyes of laws. In support of his argument, he relied on the following judgments: a. CIT Vs. Nagendra Prasad

M/S NXP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

Section 147 of the Act are not valid for taking up the case for reassessment. Without prejudice to the merits of the case, it was submitted that initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act is without authority of law and jurisdiction. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions:- SI.No. Particulars Reopening of Assessment without any new material

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SHRI. M.R. SEETHARAMA (INDL), BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal and C

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

reassessment notice in two stages, that is, (i) raising preliminary objections before the Assessing Officer and in case of failure before the Assessing Officer; (ii) challenging the speaking order of the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act." 6.2 Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Arvind Mills Ltd. vs. ACWT [2004] 270

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

270/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 15. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [iv]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section