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

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

1) of section 3 of the said Act, relates to passing of an order under sub-section (13) of section 144C of the Income-tax Act or issuance of notice under section 148 as per time-limit specified in section 149 or sanction under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, and the time limit for completion of such action

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

reassess the income for AY 2017-18. The notice\nrequired the Assessee to file a return of income within 30 days. The\nAssessee filed the return on 31.05.2021. Subsequently, vide notices\nunder section 142(1) of the Act, reasons to believe were supplied\nand additional information were sought by the AO. The Assessee\ncomplied with the notices issued

SAIKAT CHINMAY BHATTACHARYA,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

u/s 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act\ndated 27/01/2025 deserve to be quashed. Further, since we have\nadjudicated the sole legal ground in favour of the assessee, the\nother grounds raised by the assessee becomes academic.\n10. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 16th

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

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. 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

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(13) of the Act are also set aside and quashed. Since, we have adjudicated one of the legal ground in favour of the assessee, other grounds raised by the assessee becomes academic

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

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

u/s.\n144C(1) of the act holding that IUC received by the assessee are\nin the nature of 'Royalty' under the provisions of the act, as well\nunder the India-Japan DTAA.\n2.7 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee filed\nobjections before the DRP. The DRP after hearing the\nsubmissions of the assessee, passed direction dated

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands\npartly allowed

u/s.\n144C(1) of the act holding that IUC received by the assessee are\nin the nature of 'Royalty' under the provisions of the act, as well\nunder the India-Japan DTAA.\n2.7 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee filed\nobjections before the DRP. The DRP after hearing the\nsubmissions of the assessee, passed direction dated

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

1) AO should have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. (2) There should be failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. 5.2 On a careful perusal of the assessment order, material available on record, it is seen that the AO had issued notice u/s. 148 and he has also during

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

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

1) of the Act. Thereafter the Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act on 11.01.2016 on a total income of Rs.361,52,16,490/-.Thereafter within 10 days of passing the Assessment Order, the AO issued Notice under section 148 of the Act on 21.01.2016 for re-opening the Assessment on the ground that during

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

144C (1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 25. We further observe that the third proviso to section 153(1) of the Act which gives extended time limit to pass the Assessment Order where a reference under sub section (1) of section 92CA was made, the time limit for completion of assessment was prescribed as three years from

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

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

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

1), Information Technology Park, Bangalore. Nagawara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nagawara, Bangalore – 560 045. PAN: AADCP 9454H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 01.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 18.03.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is against the order

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

1)(c) of the Act.” 3. The assessee has filed additional grounds as follows:- “4. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have held the reassessment order as invalid for the reasons that a) neither the reasons recorded nor the reassessment order satisfy the pre-requisite of mentioning about failure of the assessee to disclose any material fact