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

section 147 would be attracted in the appellant’s case and that due to the same, the initial proceedings are no longer valid and hence bad in law. Hence, issuing notices u/s 250 under the erstwhile re-assessment proceedings do not have any legal weight and backing and are not binding. c. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) did not even

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 148 was unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reasons recorded by the Appellant are only reason for suspicion and not reasons to believe and accordingly the reassessment proceeding is not in accordance with law and on the facts and circumstances of the case

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act') dated March 16, 2020 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 12, Bangalore ['CIT(A)'], upholding the order passed under Page 2 of 19 section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, be struck down as invalid. as the order is bad in law and on facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 3. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.1780/Bang/2017 for assessment year 2006-07. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Learned CIT (Appeals), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, is opposed to law and the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 3. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.1780/Bang/2017 for assessment year 2006-07. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Learned CIT (Appeals), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, is opposed to law and the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 3. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.1780/Bang/2017 for assessment year 2006-07. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Learned CIT (Appeals), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, is opposed to law and the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 3. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.1780/Bang/2017 for assessment year 2006-07. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Learned CIT (Appeals), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, is opposed to law and the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250 of the Act. 3. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.1780/Bang/2017 for assessment year 2006-07. The revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Learned CIT (Appeals), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, is opposed to law and the facts

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

u/s Receipts were not offered under section 139) and thereby contending that the 139 of the Act basis juridical precedents/ Assessee had not disclosed all the facts IBM Corp’s order for AY 2011-12. - material to the computation of its total AO cannot contend that the Assessee had income. Reference drawn to Delhi not disclosed all material facts, especially

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

u/s Receipts were not offered under section 139) and thereby contending that the 139 of the Act basis juridical precedents/ Assessee had not disclosed all the facts IBM Corp’s order for AY 2011-12. - material to the computation of its total AO cannot contend that the Assessee had income. Reference drawn to Delhi not disclosed all material facts, especially

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

u/s Receipts were not offered under section 139) and thereby contending that the 139 of the Act basis juridical precedents/ Assessee had not disclosed all the facts IBM Corp’s order for AY 2011-12. - material to the computation of its total AO cannot contend that the Assessee had income. Reference drawn to Delhi not disclosed all material facts, especially

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

u/s Receipts were not offered under section 139) and thereby contending that the 139 of the Act basis juridical precedents/ Assessee had not disclosed all the facts IBM Corp’s order for AY 2011-12. - material to the computation of its total AO cannot contend that the Assessee had income. Reference drawn to Delhi not disclosed all material facts, especially

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the legal issues involved & the grounds taken in all these three appeals of the same assessee are common, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience & brevity. 2. The assessee in ITA No.823/Bang/2025

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Since the legal issues involved & the grounds taken in all these three appeals of the same assessee are common, these are clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience & brevity. 2. The assessee in ITA No.823/Bang/2025

SRI. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ashok Kumar Garg, #T-4, 8Th Main Road, 13Th Cross, The Income Tax Officer, Galaxy Eternity Apartments, Vs. Ward – 1 [3] [4], Malleshwaram, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 003. Pan: Agcpg0607P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019

reassessment proceedings in search cases where incriminating material is found, the same has to be taken up under the provisions of 153A not u/s 147 of the Act. (e) No speaking order disposing off the objections to Reasons Recorded has been passed; (f) The Reasons to Reopen are merely Reasons to Suspect Et not Reasons to Believe on the facts

M/S. BIOCON LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for AY 2010-11 to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is bad in law and facts and liable to be quashed. 2. Scope of re-assessment proceedings Page 2 of 41 2.1 That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

147, and 10.3 In the light of above, we will examine the facts of present case for AY 2016-17: 10.3.1 In this case, the assessee filed return for AY 2016- 17 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 declaring Nil income and processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 24.8.2017. The search took ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

147, and 10.3 In the light of above, we will examine the facts of present case for AY 2016-17: 10.3.1 In this case, the assessee filed return for AY 2016- 17 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 declaring Nil income and processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 24.8.2017. The search took ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

147, and 10.3 In the light of above, we will examine the facts of present case for AY 2016-17: 10.3.1 In this case, the assessee filed return for AY 2016- 17 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 13.10.2016 declaring Nil income and processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 24.8.2017. The search took ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022