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

147, section 148, section. 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized orrequisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information. contained therein, relates to, a person other than th.e person

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

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

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, 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

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

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

U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C and 147 of the Act on 19. 12 2016 disallowing the alleged excess depreciation claims on building of Rs. 23,80,603/- and Plant & Machinery of Rs. 28,19,454/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the disallowance made by the AO , the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

3) r.w.s 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. 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

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

M/S. SHIVA FERRIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Shiva Ferric Pvt. Ltd., No. 193, 4Th Floor, Shiv The Principal Sadan Outer Ring Road, Commissioner Of B. Narayanapura, Income-Tax [Central], Bangalore – 560 016. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aaics4564L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-01-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

reassessment order on account of unexplained share premium received is settled by the assessee under DTVSV Scheme, however the issue of unexplained share capital of Rs. 40,46,000/- was not considered by the assessing officer during assessment proceedings and no addition was made, eventhough the information of the same was available with the AO during assessment proceedings. Regarding settlement

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. 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