MAKINO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

reassessment proceedings were completed exparte under Section 144 rws 147 of the Act vide order dt.29.12.2009, wherein the loss under normal provisions was computed at Rs.34,65,112. The ‘book profits’ under Section 115JB of the Act was determined at Rs.1,66,60,438 as under :- Profits before tax as per P&L Account : Rs.2

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

147 is to be read to include the act of reassessing additional issues (not included in the original notice). 3. Deductibility of sales tax paid on sale of PC division 3.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in upholding the learned AO's action of treating the sales tax Page 3 of 19 paid

M/S. UE DEVELOPMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

M/S TATA ADVANCED MATERIALS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

TATA ADVANCED MATERIALS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (LTU),, BENGALURU vs. M/S. VIJAYA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

7. The AO however held that the Assessee did not file population and location of rural branches in the course of original assessment proceedings. The places where the rural branches were located at a population exceeding 10,000 and that the bank had failed to disclose the necessary details. The AO also held that though the census data was available

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TAYANA CONSULT PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

10A, even that nexus is manifest. The Assessing Authority has not properly applied his mind towards the statutory provisions and has not taken into consideration that the original assessment passed under Section 143(3) which was also reopened once and adjustment was made. It is for the second time, he was raising all these objections. When admittedly the second reopening

TEXTRON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

section 10A on the amount of provisions written back. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have held the reassessment order as invalid for the reason that the facts alleged in the reasons recorded are incorrect.” 4. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee inadvertently did not specifically take the above mentioned grounds arising from the reassessment order, as such

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

u/s. 147 is held to be valid and this grounds of appeal is dismissed.” 10. Before the Tribunal, the learned DR had justified reopening of assessment by filing written submissions. The content of the same reads as follows: “Arguments against the legal ground raised by the Appellant (i) With regard to the above ground, it is submitted that

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-4 , BANGALORE vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10

reassessment order passed by the learned AO under section 143(3) read with section 147 be quashed or in the alternative, the disallowance confirmed under section 40(a)(i) be deleted, payments made to AEs be held as not liable TDS under section 195 and interest levied under section 234B and 234C be deleted. The appellant prays accordingly

BANGALORE RAJU MUDALIAR MOHAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 10(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by both the years under consideration stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.01.2014 after obtaining prior approval of the competent authority.” Admittedly, the validity of deduction under section 10B was looked into for assessment year 2001-02 in the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act. There is no dispute that Page 9 of 14 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/Bang/2020 the said proceedings were

BANGALORE RAJU MUDALIAR MOHAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 10(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by both the years under consideration stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.01.2014 after obtaining prior approval of the competent authority.” Admittedly, the validity of deduction under section 10B was looked into for assessment year 2001-02 in the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act. There is no dispute that Page 9 of 14 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/Bang/2020 the said proceedings were

M/S RAMSOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Ramsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. No.104A, 4Th Cross, Electronic City, Hosur Road, Bangalore-561229. … Appellant Pa No.Aaacr 6948 R Vs. Deputy Commisioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. … Respondent

reassessment is bad in law. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) could not have recorded the reason that the income has escaped assessment because of the loss of the earlier year have to be set-off before allowing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act, as the Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore Bench had held that such

M/S. HYAGREEVA HOTELS & RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

147 of the Act. 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the AO denied deduction u/s. 80IB(7) of the Act on the ground that the project approval was granted to the assessee by the Regional Director of Tourism, instead of Director General of Tourism, Delhi. 5. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) took into consideration the directions of the ITAT in assessee

M/S. HYAGREEVA HOTELS & RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 3, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

147 of the Act. 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the AO denied deduction u/s. 80IB(7) of the Act on the ground that the project approval was granted to the assessee by the Regional Director of Tourism, instead of Director General of Tourism, Delhi. 5. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) took into consideration the directions of the ITAT in assessee

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NOUS INFOSYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2006-07

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 computed the deduction u/s. 10A after reducing the STPI losses of the prior years and therefore reduced the deduction u/s. 10A and computed the same on the net amount. 4. Aggrieved by the action of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee holding

M/S MARMON FOOD & BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

reassessment proceeding is invalid. 2.5. The learned lower authorities are not justified in failing to appreciate that Section 149 governs that field which is not covered by proviso to Section 147 and therefore the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) does not apply to the case of the Appellant. 3. As regards Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the action

M/S MARMON FOOD & BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

reassessment proceeding is invalid. 2.5. The learned lower authorities are not justified in failing to appreciate that Section 149 governs that field which is not covered by proviso to Section 147 and therefore the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) does not apply to the case of the Appellant. 3. As regards Learned Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the action