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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 28 of 104 the course of search under section

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 28 of 104 the course of search under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 28 of 104 the course of search under section

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. compilation wherein the SC (at page 117) - Reference to Explanation 3 to section has dealt with the aspect of ‘reasonable 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld cause”. The Supreme Court has held that where there are contradictory judicial (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)’s order) pronouncements on an issue, that itself amounts to a “reasonable

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. compilation wherein the SC (at page 117) - Reference to Explanation 3 to section has dealt with the aspect of ‘reasonable 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld cause”. The Supreme Court has held that where there are contradictory judicial (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)’s order) pronouncements on an issue, that itself amounts to a “reasonable

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. compilation wherein the SC (at page 117) - Reference to Explanation 3 to section has dealt with the aspect of ‘reasonable 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld cause”. The Supreme Court has held that where there are contradictory judicial (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)’s order) pronouncements on an issue, that itself amounts to a “reasonable

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. compilation wherein the SC (at page 117) - Reference to Explanation 3 to section has dealt with the aspect of ‘reasonable 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld cause”. The Supreme Court has held that where there are contradictory judicial (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)’s order) pronouncements on an issue, that itself amounts to a “reasonable

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

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

28,401/- by making two disallowances in the\nassessment order viz. (a) disallowance of employee's share of\nprovident contribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to\nRs.16,61,049/- and (b) disallowance of education cess claimed as\ndeduction u/s 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,22,79,936/-. It is an\nundisputed fact that the Return

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

reassess is nothing more than mere change of opinion. Free of Cost assets 5. Impugned order has erred, in law and in facts. by confirming addition of INR 3.54,82.002, made under Section 28

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess income of such “other person” in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. 4.5 In the present case, the ld. AO being Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-1, Mangalore having recorded the satisfaction for proceedings u/s 153C of the Act after duly recording the satisfaction as follows: “A search was initiated under section

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassess income of such “other person” in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. 4.5 In the present case, the ld. AO being Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Central Circle-1, Mangalore having recorded the satisfaction for proceedings u/s 153C of the Act after duly recording the satisfaction as follows: “A search was initiated under section

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, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

28-10-2017 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has claimed both the capital expenses and depreciation as application of income. Therefore, penalty proceedings are initiated u/s.274 read with section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 separately.” Penalty Notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of Income Tax Act, 1961 for mis- reporting of income is enclosed herewith

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

reassessment\nproceedings/\nduring 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)\nAirlines Ltd. VS Commissioner of\nIncome Tax [2022] 144 taxmann.com\n221 (SC) page 112-141 of case law\ncompilation wherein the SC (at page 117)\nhas dealt with

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

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

KUMARSWAMY GANGASHARAISH KALLUR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

reassessment proceedings, the addition was made under section 69C of the Act which is a fictional provision and the income assessed by the AO is beyond the purview of sections 28