QUINTILES RESEARCH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and the\ndepartmental appeal is dismissed

reassessment.\n\nUnder the existing provisions of sub-section (4) of\nsection 92CA, it has been provided that on receipt of the\norder under sub-section (3) of said section, the Assessing\nOfficer shall proceed to compute the total income of the\nassessee under sub-section (4) of section 92C

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act are invalid and bad in law. 3. Assessment Order passed by the Learned AO under section 144 rws 147 rws 144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation under section 153 of the Act 3.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Order

M/S. TOKAI RIKA MINDA INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment order itself is bad in law, whether such order can be revised u/s. 263 of the Act. The Tribunal held that since no notice u/s. 143(2) was prepared, issued and served upon the assessee, the assessment framed u/s. 147 of the Act is illegal, invalid and bad in law. Assessee can challenge the validity of re-assessment proceedings

WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

3 of 19 IT(TP)A No. 343/Bang/2024 Company had not seconded any employee to SanDisk India during the said year and accordingly the question of receiving any reimbursement of salary of seconded employees does not arise. 3.3. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts, without applying the mind and without appreciating the facts submitted, in making