SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

11, 2003. Considering the above discussions, we are of the view that these are not the fit cases for initiation of the reassessment proceedings because the Assessing Officer failed to make out a case within the four corners of the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

11, 2003. Considering the above discussions, we are of the view that these are not the fit cases for initiation of the reassessment proceedings because the Assessing Officer failed to make out a case within the four corners of the provisions of section 147 of the Income-tax Act.” 69. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

11. The ld. AR submitted as stated earlier, the extension was brought in by amendment which is with effect from 01.07.2012. There is nothing in the amendment to indicate retrospectivity in clear terms. As stated earlier, retrospectivity cannot be easily inferred or implied. The Explanation clarifying that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance

SHRI. JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

11. The ld. AR submitted as stated earlier, the extension was brought in by amendment which is with effect from 01.07.2012. There is nothing in the amendment to indicate retrospectivity in clear terms. As stated earlier, retrospectivity cannot be easily inferred or implied. The Explanation clarifying that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance

ABHERAJ BALDOTA FOUNDATION ,HOSPET vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

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

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

reassessment proceedings, inadvertently allowed deduction of Rs.180.00 lakhs u/s 11(2) of the Act against the above said income of Rs.240.26 lakhs and the same has resulted in net addition of Rs.60.26 lakhs only, asagainst the proposed addition of Rs.91.65 lakhs u/s 11(3) of the Act, i.e., deduction to the extent of Rs.31.40 lakhs (being the shortfall between proposed

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

d), for advances given by both rural and non-rural branches. 7.16 In the instant case, the assessee has claimed deduction towards PBDD under clause (a) to sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act, meaning thereby, the clause (a) is applicable to rural advances only as per the decision given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic

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

d), for advances given by both rural and non-rural branches. 7.16 In the instant case, the assessee has claimed deduction towards PBDD under clause (a) to sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act, meaning thereby, the clause (a) is applicable to rural advances only as per the decision given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

11 of 38 18. It was further submitted that vide letter dated 26.09.2014 the ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore has communicated the recorded reasons. Section 147 of the Act states that “if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 12/12/2024, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. Before us the assessee has also filed a paper book comprising 154 pages containing therein the written submissions, notice u/s. 148(b), order u/s. 148(d), notice u/s. 148, sale deed dated 01/04/2015, affidavit of Mrs. Kalavathi K dated 19/03/2025, copy

NEETA BHAMBHANI,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act dated 30/10/2025, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has also filed a paper book comprising of 17 pages containing therein the copy of notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act, copy of the order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, copy of notice u/s

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

147 of the Act/ assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act were issued along with show- cause notices for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the matters pertaining to AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17 and under section 270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20 respectively

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

147 of the Act/ assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act were issued along with show- cause notices for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the matters pertaining to AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17 and under section 270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20 respectively

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

147 of the Act/ assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act were issued along with show- cause notices for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the matters pertaining to AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17 and under section 270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20 respectively

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

147 of the Act/ assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act were issued along with show- cause notices for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the matters pertaining to AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17 and under section 270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20 respectively

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

reassess the\ntotal income, where search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A.\nTherefore, in our opinion, the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147\nand his order is illegal and arbitrary. In view of the above and in view of the decision\nrelied upon by the assessee, we do not find any merit

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC dated 30.11.2022 for the assessment year 2020-21. The assessee has raised following grounds:- The Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, for the Asst Year 2020-210, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, is contrary

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

reassess the\ntotal income, where search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A.\nTherefore, in our opinion, the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147\nand his order is illegal and arbitrary. In view of the above and in view of the decision\nrelied upon by the assessee, we do not find any merit

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

reassess the\ntotal income, where search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A.\nTherefore, in our opinion, the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147\nand his order is illegal and arbitrary. In view of the above and in view of the decision\nrelied upon by the assessee, we do not find any merit

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

reassess the\ntotal income, where search is conducted u/s 132 or requisition is made u/s 132A.\nTherefore, in our opinion, the AO is not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147\nand his order is illegal and arbitrary. In view of the above and in view of the decision\nrelied upon by the assessee, we do not find any merit