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

TDS. Furthermore, IBM India had duly deducted taxes under section 192 of the Act in respect of same secondment reimbursements. Given the same, there was no requirement on part of the IBM Foreign Entities to obtain a certificate under section 197 of the Act. Additionally, they submitted that the provisions of section 197 of the Act are not mandatory

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

TDS. Furthermore, IBM India had duly deducted taxes under section 192 of the Act in respect of same secondment reimbursements. Given the same, there was no requirement on part of the IBM Foreign Entities to obtain a certificate under section 197 of the Act. Additionally, they submitted that the provisions of section 197 of the Act are not mandatory

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

TDS, which acts as a\ndefence against levy of penalty. IBM\nforeign entities had reasonable cause to\nnot file a return under section 139 of the\nAct basis:\nIBM Corp's assessment order for AY\n2011-12 which had attained finality\nPlethora of judicial precedents in\nassessee's favor on the secondment\nmatter, including the Special Bench\nreferral order

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

TDS, which acts as a\ndefence against levy of penalty. IBM\nforeign entities had reasonable cause to\nnot file a return under section 139 of the\nAct basis:\nIBM Corp's assessment order for AY\n2011-12 which had attained finality\nPlethora of judicial precedents in\nassessee's favor on the secondment\nmatter, including the Special Bench\nreferral order

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

TDS, which acts as a\ndefence against levy of penalty. IBM\nforeign entities had reasonable cause to\nnot file a return under section 139 of the\nAct basis:\nIBM Corp's assessment order for AY\n2011-12 which had attained finality\nPlethora of judicial precedents in\nassessee's favor on the secondment\nmatter, including the Special Bench\nreferral order

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

TDS, which acts as a\ndefence against levy of penalty. IBM\nforeign entities had reasonable cause to\nnot file a return under section 139 of the\nAct basis:\nIBM Corp's assessment order for AY\n2011-12 which had attained finality\nPlethora of judicial precedents in\nassessee's favor on the secondment\nmatter, including the Special Bench\nreferral order

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

TDS, which acts as a\ndefence against levy of penalty. IBM\nforeign entities had reasonable cause to\nnot file a return under section 139 of the\nAct basis:\nIBM Corp's assessment order for AY\n2011-12 which had attained finality\nPlethora of judicial precedents in\nassessee's favor on the secondment\nmatter, including the Special Bench\nreferral order

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

TDS, which acts as a\ndefence against levy of penalty. IBM\nforeign entities had reasonable cause to\nnot file a return under section 139 of the\nAct basis:\nIBM Corp's assessment order for AY\n2011-12 which had attained finality\nPlethora of judicial precedents in\nassessee's favor on the secondment\nmatter, including the Special Bench\nreferral order

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

TDS, which acts as a\ndefence against levy of penalty. IBM\nforeign entities had reasonable cause to\nnot file a return under section 139 of the\nAct basis:\n\n- IBM Corp's assessment order for AY\n2011-12 which had attained finality\n- Plethora of judicial precedents in\nassessee's favor on the secondment\nmatter, including the Special Bench

IBM CHINA HONG KONG LIMITED,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

1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to\ntax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the submission of\nIBM in respect of discrepancies under\nwhich limb penalty is levied, basis the\nbelow contentions:\nThe provisions of section 270A

IBM JAPAN 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

TDS, which acts as a\ndefence against levy of penalty. IBM\nforeign entities had reasonable cause to\nnot file a return under section 139 of the\nAct basis:\nIBM Corp's assessment order for AY\n2011-12 which had attained finality\nPlethora of judicial precedents in\nassessee's favor on the secondment\nmatter, including the Special Bench\nreferral order

IBM JAPAN 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

1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related\nreceipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section\n148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the submission of\nIBM in respect of discrepancies under\nwhich limb penalty is levied, basis the\nbelow contentions:\n- The provisions of section 270A

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 192 on the employer to deduct tax on such allowance. Moreover, it is also not possible to collate bills for every minuscule expenses and mere non-collation of bills in support of amount expenses cannot prevail over the fact of incurring such expenses. It is found that the Assessing Officer has not gone through the Central Board of Direct

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 192 on the employer to deduct tax on such allowance. Moreover, it is also not possible to collate bills for every minuscule expenses and mere non-collation of bills in support of amount expenses cannot prevail over the fact of incurring such expenses. It is found that the Assessing Officer has not gone through the Central Board of Direct

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 192 on the employer to deduct tax on such allowance. Moreover, it is also not possible to collate bills for every minuscule expenses and mere non-collation of bills in support of amount expenses cannot prevail over the fact of incurring such expenses. It is found that the Assessing Officer has not gone through the Central Board of Direct

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 192 on the employer to deduct tax on such allowance. Moreover, it is also not possible to collate bills for every minuscule expenses and mere non-collation of bills in support of amount expenses cannot prevail over the fact of incurring such expenses. It is found that the Assessing Officer has not gone through the Central Board of Direct

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 192 on the employer to deduct tax on such allowance. Moreover, it is also not possible to collate bills for every minuscule expenses and mere non-collation of bills in support of amount expenses cannot prevail over the fact of incurring such expenses. It is found that the Assessing Officer has not gone through the Central Board of Direct

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 192 on the employer to deduct tax on such allowance. Moreover, it is also not possible to collate bills for every minuscule expenses and mere non-collation of bills in support of amount expenses cannot prevail over the fact of incurring such expenses. It is found that the Assessing Officer has not gone through the Central Board of Direct