ADDL/JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S VIJAYA BANK , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

56,88,806 Total 269379,91,73,064 260371,10,91,735 264875,51,32,401 19. From the above table, the AO observed that the assessee has not transferred any amount to the special reserve as mentioned in section 36(1)(viii) of the Act . Further the assessee was questioned regarding transfer to special reserve as the section mandates

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

TDS deducted. 16. The assessee has filed cross-objections in respect of addition of Rs.96.87 lakhs made to Visa International, which has been confirmed by ld CIT(A) by way of setting aside to the AO. ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 44 of 46 17. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We noticed that an identical

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

TDS deducted. 16. The assessee has filed cross-objections in respect of addition of Rs.96.87 lakhs made to Visa International, which has been confirmed by ld CIT(A) by way of setting aside to the AO. ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 44 of 46 17. We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We noticed that an identical

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 AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section 271(1

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 AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section 271(1

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

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section 271(1

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

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section 271(1

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

TDS AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

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 AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

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 AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

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 AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

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

TDS AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

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 AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

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 AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

M/S. BANGALORE PHARMACEUTICAL AND RESEARCH LABORATORY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

56,889. A third rectification application was filed by the assessee on 22.6.2020 which was rejected by the CPC vide order dated 14.07.2020. 3. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the grounds pertaining to disallowance of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

56. Thus, we hold that Section 11 of the Acquisition Act which deals a corresponding new bank treated as Indian company for the purpose of Income Tax, however, Clause (b) in Sub-Section 2 to Section 115JB does not permit treatment of such bank as a company for the purpose of the said clause, because it should be ITA No.424/Mum/2020

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 AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

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 AO as per\nsection 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability.\n4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty\nunder section 271(1)(c) of the Act\n4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee\nhas 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,HAVERI 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

56,468 2016-17 1,30,588 31,320 666 156 9,116 2,275 1,74,121 Shivamogga: Payment to HP In la Sales Cash Medical Benefit u/s Pvt. Ltd. an MDC Projects Total 192 u s 194J# TDS Interest u/ s TDS Interest u/ s deductible 201(1A) deductible 201(1A) 2,09,703 - - 201 1