ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

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

147 of the Act. 5.1 The ld. A.R. submitted that the Survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Act on 17-09-2010 at residential premises at No.523, "SUMUKHA", 3rd Main, BSK 3rd stage, Bangalore -560085 of the assessee besides business premises. The power of entry into the residential and business premises prescribed under section

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal and Oil Company, Udupi Page 6 of 85 4.4 Same view is fortified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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

section 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

IBM CANADA 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

reassessment\nproceedings/ during the course of\nreassessment proceedings.\nReference to Explanation 3 to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld\n(Page 10-11 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nRebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations\nIn addition to the above, legal\nsubmissions, it is submitted that IBM\nIndia has reported such receipts in 3CEB\nExplanation

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

133A\nof the Act, In the list detailed out, name of the assessee is appearing as Xentrix\nTechnologies Ltd., at the last of the table and the assessee is a proprietor of this\ntrade name which is is proved from the financial statement and computation of\nincome submitted. However, while confirming in 132 proceedings, the same\nstatement given under section

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

133A\nof the Act, In the list detailed out, name of the assessee is appearing as Xentrix\nTechnologies Ltd., at the last of the table and the assessee is a proprietor of this\ntrade name which is is proved from the financial statement and computation of\nincome submitted. However, while confirming in 132 proceedings, the same\nstatement given under section

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

133A of the Act was conducted on 19/02/2018 at the business premise of the Assessee Company. The assessee company had developed a project by name “INTACT AVENUE” located at Sy. No. 307/2, Begur village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru. The said project is a residential apartment consisting of 36 units with an area of 1733.31 sq.mtrs. The total buildup area

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

133A of the Act was conducted on 19/02/2018 at the business premise of the Assessee Company. The assessee company had developed a project by name “INTACT AVENUE” located at Sy. No. 307/2, Begur village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru. The said project is a residential apartment consisting of 36 units with an area of 1733.31 sq.mtrs. The total buildup area

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

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

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.] 34[Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.] 34[Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts

IBM CANADA 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

reassessment\nproceedings/ during the course of\nreassessment proceedings.\nReference to Explanation 3 to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld\n(Page 10-11 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nThe CIT(A) has contended that mere\nacceptance of tax liability will not\npreclude the levy of the penalty on the\nassessee.\nThe CIT(A) has relied