GLOBE TELESERVICES LIMITED,HONG KONG vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for both\nthe years under consideration stands partly allowed

Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, leading to reassessment.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that the payments were

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

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

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

9(1)(vi) of the Act. In this decision, the\nTribunal also discussed the modalities involved in the online advertising business,\nin the context of Google Search Engine.\n(iv) Inception Business (supra): In this case the assessee was engaged in the\nbusiness of brand management as well as posting advertisements in the social\nportal on behalf of their clients

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

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

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

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

reassessment intimation passed u/s 154 of the Act where in in intimation order under section 143 (1) of the income tax act 1961 dated 27 June 2023 passed by the central processing Centre, assesseee sought rectification for allowance of deduction u/s 80 P of the act despite filing Return of income beyond due date u/s 139(1

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

reassessment intimation passed u/s 154 of the Act where in in intimation order under section 143 (1) of the income tax act 1961 dated 27 June 2023 passed by the central processing Centre, assesseee sought rectification for allowance of deduction u/s 80 P of the act despite filing Return of income beyond due date u/s 139(1

M/S SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

vi) When the charging section and the computing provision together would constitute an integrated code. In case charging section does not apply then the computation section fails. CIT vs B C Shrinivas Setty 128 ITR 294 = 2002-TIOL-587-SC-IT- LB." 58. However, the plea of the assessee with respect to nonapplicability of section 115JB to the Banking Companies

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

vi) This notice dated 18th February, 2018 under Section 148 of the Act was sent by speed post on 19th February, 2018. (vii) Petitioner did not respond or file his return of income in response to this notice. (viii) The Income-tax Officer Ward No.1 (1), Noida, had then issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 27th

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

reassess the total income of such person for six assessment\nyears immediately preceeding the assessment year relevant to the\nprevious year in which such search is conducted or\nrequisition is made. I’m of the view that the legislative intent\nis very clear from the use of the expression “such person” in\nsection 153A(1

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

9 of the statement recorded u/s 132(4) which itself was based on adhoc basis at the rate of 10% of sales after tax, when no real income was accrued to the Assessee, mere estimation of profit at a particular percentage is arbitrary and not due to seizure of any incriminating material and the same is well brought

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

reassessment proceeding also makes the order bad in law and such order is liable to be quashed. 3.1 In any case and without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the provisions of Section 50C of the Act are applicable in the instant case and thus confirming the additions made by Assessing officer

HGC GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.28/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Hcg Global Communications Ltd., Vs. Dcit (It), 16/F Hutchison Telecom Tower, Circle – 2(2), 99 Cheung Fai Road, Bengaluru. Hong Kong. Pan : Aaech 5871 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, Vikram Udupa, Cas Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2024 O R D E R Per George George K:

reassessment notice. However, the objections of the assessee were rejected and Draft Assessment Order was passed on 29.12.2019. In the Draft Assessment Order, the AO relying on the proceedings under section 201 of the Act in the case of VSL for the Financial Years 2007-08 to 2011-12, had held that amounts received by the assessee company

MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

1) or 143(3). If such orders is already in existence prior to the\ninitiation of search, the Assessing Officer is empowered to reopen those proceedings\nand reassess the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, found\nduring the course of search. For this purpose, the restrictions imposed on the Assessing\nOfficer by way of sections