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

1), Mumbai [2012] 206 TAXMAN 351 (BOM.)  Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Guj.) 2012-TIOL-667- HC-AHM-IT 35. It is submitted that the ‘reason to believe’ contemplated in section 147 should be that of the Assessing Officer. The AO has to apply his mind independently to the material based on which the belief is sought

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

1), Mumbai [2012] 206 TAXMAN 351 (BOM.)  Inductotherm (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Guj.) 2012-TIOL-667- HC-AHM-IT 35. It is submitted that the ‘reason to believe’ contemplated in section 147 should be that of the Assessing Officer. The AO has to apply his mind independently to the material based on which the belief is sought

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

reassessment notice issued under section 148 in a case where the original assessment was made under section 143(1) cannot be challenged on the ground of a mere change of opinion, still it is open to an assessee to challenge the notice on the ground that there is no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

41(4) in respect of the recoveries made from the bad debts not allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) in the earlier years and in the current year, if the Ground relating to the claim of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) is decided against the Appellant Bank. ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 3 of 46 4. The learned

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

41(4) in respect of the recoveries made from the bad debts not allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) in the earlier years and in the current year, if the Ground relating to the claim of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) is decided against the Appellant Bank. ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 3 of 46 4. The learned

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

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

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

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

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

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

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

41 of 56 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - The CIT(A) has rejected the submission of While the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

u/s 147 for the assessment year under consideration and consequent\nassessment order passed for AY 2007-08 as unsustainable.\n8. From the order of the learned CIT(A) the revenue filed appeal\nbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n9. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the\norder of the AO and submitted that on the basis of seized documents

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

u/s 147 for the assessment year under consideration and consequent\nassessment order passed for AY 2007-08 as unsustainable.\n8. From the order of the learned CIT(A) the revenue filed appeal\nbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n9. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the\norder of the AO and submitted that on the basis of seized documents

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

u/s 147 for the assessment year under consideration and consequent\nassessment order passed for AY 2007-08 as unsustainable.\n\n8. From the order of the learned CIT(A) the revenue filed appeal\nbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n\n9. The learned Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the\norder of the AO and submitted that on the basis

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

41 KM, Bangalore-Mysore Road, Circle-2(1)(1), Village Madapura, Vs. Bengaluru. Ramanagaram-571 511. PAN No. – AAACC 1661 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajgopal, C.A Respondent by : Smt. Vidya K, JCIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.08.2023 O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee

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 37 r.w.s. 40A(3) of the Act. e. The Assessee wishes to submit that the reasons recorded by the learned AO are merely reasons to suspect and there is no belief that the income has escaped assessment. It is submitted that the provisions of section 147 of the Act require that the AO should have reasons to believe that

COMPAGNIE IBM FRANCE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

reassessment\nproceedings.\nThe CIT(A) has distinguished the facts\nof the case from Karnataka HC's\nruling in Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory [2013] 35\nTaxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A

IBM CANADA 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

reassessment\nproceedings.\nThe CIT(A) has distinguished the facts\nof the case from Karnataka HC's\nruling in Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory [2013] 35\nTaxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A

IBM CANADA 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

reassessment\nproceedings.\nThe CIT(A) has distinguished the facts\nof the case from Karnataka HC's\nruling in Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory [2013] 35\nTaxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A

IBM DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,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

reassessment\nproceedings.\nThe CIT(A) has distinguished the facts\nof the case from Karnataka HC's\nruling in Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory [2013] 35\nTaxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A