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

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 148 on 12/04/2024, which very well falls within the limitation period. In this regard we are of the considered opinion that undisputedly the erstwhile third proviso to amended section 149(1) of the Act allows for the exclusion of the time taken for Section 148A proceedings. However, this exclusion is for computing the period of limitation as per section

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

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 UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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 foreign

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 CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

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 foreign

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

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

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

u/s 148, the learned officer ought to have considered the amended provisions of section 148, 148A and 149 for the procedure to handle the reassessment after 01.04.2021. ii. Amended section 148 of the Act read as below: “Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, and subject to the provisions of section 148A, the Assessing Officer shall serve

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Reassessment order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the 8 Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) has been issued.” 7. Further he also strongly relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jora Singh (2013) 32 taxmann.com

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

u/s 139. Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah, Hospete Page 34 of 58 7.7 The section 148 (1) [as it stood at the relevant point of time] reads as under: “148. [(i)] Before making the assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147

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

section 127 of the Act and the case has been rightly transferred from Circle 4(2)(1) to Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. There is no error in assuming jurisdiction over the assessee by the present AO i.e. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. This ground of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 127 of the Act and the case has been rightly transferred from Circle 4(2)(1) to Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. There is no error in assuming jurisdiction over the assessee by the present AO i.e. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. This ground of the assessee is dismissed

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

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 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income….” , Hence the basic requirement for initiating proceedings u/s

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

reassessment proceedings is barred by limitation. The impugned assessment year is 2002-03. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act had ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 40 been issued on 24.03.2014. Section 149 which deals with time-limit for issuing notice, prior to its amendment by Finance Act, 2012, read as under: “149.(1) No notice under section 148

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

reassessment proceedings is barred by limitation. The impugned assessment year is 2002-03. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act had ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Bang/2021 Page 5 of 40 been issued on 24.03.2014. Section 149 which deals with time-limit for issuing notice, prior to its amendment by Finance Act, 2012, read as under: “149.(1) No notice under section 148

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry

M/S VVD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s. 149(1)(a)(iii) expired on the date of issue of notice and therefore notice of reassessment was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors., 355 ITR 102 (Bom) held that under the present section 147, no action could be taken after expiry