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

270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under section 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under section 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under section 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under section 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

SEKHON JAGTAR SINGH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2017-18

2) of Section 270A, then the benefit of sub- Section (6) to Section 270A is also not available to the assessee. Therefore, the next issue for consideration is whether the assessee's case is one of misreporting of income and whether the case of assessee falls specifically under sub-Section (a) to Section 9 dealing with "misrepresentation or suppression

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

270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under section 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under section 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under section 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

IBM AUSTRALIA 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

270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under section 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

IBM ISRAEL 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

270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under section 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under section 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

COMPAGNIE IBM FRANCE,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

270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under section 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

TDS under\nsection 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees,\nin respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign\ncompanies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were\nconducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders\nunder section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/assessment\norder under section 143(3) of the Act were

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

2,83,55,533. 3.2 The NFAC erred in not considering the Hon’ble DRP’s directions and not allowing the tax credits (TDS, advance tax and self-assessment tax) pertaining to erstwhile Aruba India (Merged Entity) amounting to INR 15,67,10,007. 3.3 The NFAC erred in granting credit for TCS amounting to INR 75,520 while computing

AKSHATA VISHWAS TUDAVEKAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 270A had no application to the facts and circumstances of the case and ought to have appreciated that the levy of penalty under consideration wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 4. The NFAC failed to appreciate that the order imposing penalty was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction

M/S. SRI. MUTHU CINE SERVICE,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

270A For under- reporting of income 2. Date on which 16.06.2021 assessment completed u/s 153C of the Act in which penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 16.06.2021 16.06.2021 16.06.2021 16.06.2021 271(1)(c)/270A of the Act 3. Show cause notices 14.01.2022 issued 4. Amount of penalty Rs.1,78,448/- levied 5. Date of passing 15.02.2022 penalty orders

MRS. SABENA PRAKASH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 270A of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The Appellant craves to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 13. In view of the above and other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed

AB INBEV GCC SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS GCC SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 290/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Ab Inbev Gcc Services India Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier Known As Gcc Services India Pvt. Ltd.), The Deputy 12Th & 13Th Floor, Commissioner Of Peridot Block, Bagmane Income Tax, World Technology Centre Circle 3(1)(1), Sez, Vs. Bangalore. Marthalli Road, Kr Puram, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan: Aafcg8223M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Dated 21/02/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

270A of the Act by falsely stating that the Assessee has under- reported the income. 4. Increase in book profits u/s 115JB and computation of tax liability u/s 115JB of the Act – Adjustment of INR 13,27,364 That on the facts and in law, Ld. AO was not justified and has erred in considering the book 21.3416% of profit