SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

9] of section 139 of the Act, which was brought into the statue in the Finance Act 2013, w.e.f. 01/06/2013 is not applicable to the A.Y's 2010-11 & 2012-13. 4.13 Finally, the provisions of section 153A of the Act which starts with a non-obstante clause that over-rides the provisions of section 139 of the Act meaning

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

9] of section 139 of the Act, which was brought into the statue in the Finance Act 2013, w.e.f. 01/06/2013 is not applicable to the A.Y's 2010-11 & 2012-13. 4.13 Finally, the provisions of section 153A of the Act which starts with a non-obstante clause that over-rides the provisions of section 139 of the Act meaning

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

9] of section 139 of the Act, which was brought into the statue in the Finance Act 2013, w.e.f. 01/06/2013 is not applicable to the A.Y's 2010-11 & 2012-13. 4.13 Finally, the provisions of section 153A of the Act which starts with a non-obstante clause that over-rides the provisions of section 139 of the Act meaning

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE vs. L JAVERCHAND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. No.1, 2Nd Floor & 3Rd Floor, Choksi Chamber Dcit 1Stagyari Lane Vs. Central Circle-1 Zaveri Bazar Mangaluru Mumbai 400 002

reassessed. (4)Subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), where the source of any receipt, deposit or investment in any assessment year is claimed to be an amount added to income or deducted while computing loss, as the case may be, in the assessment of such person in any year prior to the assessment year in which such receipt

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

reassessment\nunder sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147, as the case may be, has been\npaid within the period specified in such notice of demand; and\n(b) no appeal against the order referred to in clause (a) has been filed.\n(2) An application referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made within one month

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

section 9(1)(vi) of\nthe Act and also as per DTAA.\n7.2.21 The payment received by the non-resident assessee\namounts to be the business profits of the assessee which is\ntaxable in the resident country and is not taxable in India under\nArticle 5 of the DTAA as there is no case of permanent\nestablishment of the assessee

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, JAPAN

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

section 9(1)(vi) of\nthe Act and also as per DTAA.\n7.2.21 The payment received by the non-resident assessee\namounts to be the business profits of the assessee which is\ntaxable in the resident country and is not taxable in India under\nArticle 5 of the DTAA as there is no case of permanent\nestablishment of the assessee

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

reassessed. (4)Subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), where the source of any receipt, deposit or investment in any assessment year is claimed to be an amount added to income or deducted while computing loss, as the case may be, in the assessment of such person in any year prior to the assessment year in which such receipt

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

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

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

9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO noted that the ITAT, Bangalore has held the payments made to GIL towards Adwords program as royalty vide its order dated 23.10.2017. 4. Based on the above information in the case of GIPL, the AO observed that the assessee-GIL has not filed return of income for the respective assessment years

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

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

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

9(1)(vi) of the Act. The AO noted that the ITAT, Bangalore has held the payments made to GIL towards Adwords program as royalty vide its order dated 23.10.2017. 4. Based on the above information in the case of GIPL, the AO observed that the assessee-GIL has not filed return of income for the respective assessment years

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

9 of 56 Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section 148 of the Act 2017- 544/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed IBM Corporation 270A

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

9 of 56 Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section 148 of the Act 2017- 544/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed IBM Corporation 270A

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

9 of 56 Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section 148 of the Act 2017- 544/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed IBM Corporation 270A

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

9 of 56 Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section 148 of the Act 2017- 544/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed IBM Corporation 270A

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

9 of 104 India in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3, V. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) 149 Taxmann.com 399 (SC), the conclusion of which is reproduced as under: As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

9 of 104 India in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3, V. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) 149 Taxmann.com 399 (SC), the conclusion of which is reproduced as under: As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess

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

9 of 104 India in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3, V. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) 149 Taxmann.com 399 (SC), the conclusion of which is reproduced as under: As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess

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

9 of 104 India in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3, V. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) 149 Taxmann.com 399 (SC), the conclusion of which is reproduced as under: As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess