AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

reassessment. Accordingly, the AO prepared draft Assessment Order under section 144C of the Act vide Order dated 31.03.2022 and issued to the assessee. Since assessee is a non- resident, therefore, the case was taken up by the International Taxation Department. The assessee did not challenge the draft Assessment Order passed under section 144C of the Act before

M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area So Bidadi Acit Vs. Ramanagar Ltu, Circle-1 Bengaluru 562 109 Banalore Pan No : Aaact5415B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Padam Chand Kincha, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Kumutha D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024

reassessment order after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the assessment year 2011-12, though there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment, which is contrary to first proviso to section 147 of the Act. Ground relating to Corporate Tax 4. The learned

M/S. CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B.V. INDIA BRANCH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE- 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2572/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, Mahatma Gandhi International Taxation, Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 31.12.2015 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. —India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant'), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Learned Ao') Dated October 15, 2019 Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') Pursuant To The Directions Dated September 23, 2019 Issued By The Drp U/S 144C(5) Of The Act ('The Impugned Order') Inter-Alia On The Following Grounds:

u/s 144C(5) of the Act ('the Impugned order') inter-alia on the following grounds: Page 2 of 16 IT(IT)A No. 2572/Bang/2019 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO/ DRP has: Reopeninq under section 147 of the Act 1. Erred in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Income

M/S NXP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. 3.4 The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the order passed by the learned AO is bad in law in as much as the learned AO has passed the re-assessment order without disposing of the objection of the assessee which goes to the root of the matter and therefore

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

TNT EXPRESS WORLDWIDE UK LIMITED,U.K vs. ADIT, BANGALORE

In the result, order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

144C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') without proper issuance and service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the re-assessment made without the issuance and service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act be treated as without jurisdiction and therefore deserves to be quashed. Without Prejudice to Ground

RAHUL MEKA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 151 (ii) of the Act. Hence, they are required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the consequential reassessment order dated 8.3.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C

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

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

reassessment proceedings was initiated against the assessee for the years under consideration and notice u/s. 148 of the act was issued to the assessee. 2.6 Thereafter the Ld.AO passed an order dated 29.03.2023 u/s. 144C(1) of the act holding that IUC received by the assessee are in the nature of 'Royalty' under the provisions of the act, as well

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, JAPAN

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

reassessment proceedings was initiated against the assessee for the years under consideration and notice u/s. 148 of the act was issued to the assessee. 2.6 Thereafter the Ld.AO passed an order dated 29.03.2023 u/s. 144C(1) of the act holding that IUC received by the assessee are in the nature of 'Royalty' under the provisions of the act, as well

KDDI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. Nos. 7 To 9/Bang/2024 (In It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024) & It(It)A Nos. 100 To 102/Bang/2024

reassessment proceedings was initiated against the assessee for the years under consideration and notice u/s. 148 of the act was issued to the assessee. 2.6 Thereafter the Ld.AO passed an order dated 29.03.2023 u/s. 144C(1) of the act holding that IUC received by the assessee are in the nature of 'Royalty' under the provisions of the act, as well

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

HEWLETT-PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

144C of the Act dated 29.10.2018. We are of the considered opinion that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed all the requisite information/details and has disclosed fully and truly all the material facts required for completion of the assessment. On perusing the order of reassessment passed u/s 147 of the Act, we find that nowhere

RAGHAVAN NAMBATH MENON,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD INTL. TAXATION 1(2), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Section 3 of Taxation and Other IT(IT)A No.278/Bang/2025 Raghavan Nambath Menon, Bangalore Page 21 of 22 Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 applies

RAICHUR CITY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,RAICHUR vs. DIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Laliet Kumarraichur City Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Gunj Road, Raichur-584 102. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income-Tax Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, Bengaluru. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri B.S Sudheendra, C.A Respondent By : Shri G Kamaladar, Standing Counsel

147 or section 153A or section 153C with the approval of the [Principal Commissioner or]Commissioner as referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA or an order passed under section 154 or section 155 in respect of such order; [ (f) an order passed by the prescribed authority under sub-clause (vi)or sub-clause (via)of clause

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

144C of the Act, the AO initiated proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act. The reasons recorded for initiating proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act are given in para 2 of the order of reassessment and the gist of the same has already been narrated above. 5. In the reassessment proceedings, the assessee made the following three submissions:- (1) The proceedings

VAZHOOR SUDARSANAN THAMPI,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

147 read with section 144 is bad in law and on notice under section 143 (2) was issued to the assessee or to the notice under section 142 (1) of the act as assessee has no access to the email id and has not received any message on registered mobile number. More so, the assessee’s registered mobile number

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) , CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU , BENGALURU vs. TELEKOM MALAYSIA BEHARD, MALAYSIA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-12 was right in ignoring the fact that the assessee had in accordance with