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

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

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

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

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

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

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

2 3 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

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

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

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

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

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

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

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

2 Karl Storz Endoscopy India (P) Limited (ITA No 13 of 2008) (Delhi HC) (refer page 199 – 201 of PB) Favourable Delhi HC 13 September 2010 3 Abbey Business Services India Pvt Ltd (23 Taxmann.com 346) – later on confirmed by Karnataka High Court Favourable Bangalore ITAT 18 July 2012 4 Marks & Spencer Reliance India Private Limited [2013] Favourable Mumbai ITAT

MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

capital gain is computed at Rs.1,12,15,692/-. The assessee admitted the disallowance made in the assessment order and stated to have make payment of the entire tax liability. The AO was of the opinion that since the assessee has failed to substantiate his claim of expenses of Rs.90,53,431/- with supporting documents in any form and also

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Bhavasara Kshatriya Co- Operative Society Ltd., 279, Benkinawab Street, Mandi Mohalla, Mysureu-570 001. Pan – Aadat 2458 F Appelant Assessee By : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.01.2024

270A of the Act, dated _14/11/2023 in which it has been mentioned that the appellate order was passed. 6. That, even in course of the penalty proceedings we had filed a response stating that the appeal filed by us was pending and it appears that the Assessment Unit had sent another notice dated 29/09/2023 stating that the appeal filed

NORTHERN OPERATING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ARGON SOUTH TOWER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 (1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Northern Operating Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor Rmz Ecopace, Circle – 5(1)(1), Campus 1C, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaccn 1652 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Divya Motwani, Ca. Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2024

270A were also proposed to be initiated on this issue for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof.” 10. Disallowance under section 37 of the Act operates under Chapter IV-D of the Act while computing income under head “Profits and Gains from Business / Profession”. Expenses prescribed under sections

M/S. FLIPKART INDIA PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

270A of the Act by Ld. AO. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in failing to delete interest levied under Section 234B of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S. FLIPKART INDIA PVT LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

270A of the Act by Ld. AO. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in failing to delete interest levied under Section 234B of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers

SMT. VANI RAMACHANDRAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusmt. Vani Ramachandran Vs The Income Tax Officer-3(2)(1) 40, Vishram, 4Th Main Bmtc Building Kalyan Nagar Koramangala Bangalore 560072 Bangalore 560095 Pan – Ajtpr2276F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravishankar S.V., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Dated 03.11.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds & Also Additional Grounds. However, The Solitary Issue That Was Argued By The Learned A.R. Was Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.25,000/- Imposed Under Section 271A Of The Act.

2 Smt. Vani Ramachandran under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed on 21.09.2021 determining the total income at Rs.13,93,176/- . The AO had added a sum of Rs.13,93,176/- as unexplained investment under Section 69A of the Act. The AO had initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271A of the Act stating that the assessee

MARVELL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Rahul Chaudharym/S. Marvell India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Tower D & E Global Technology Park, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road Devarabeesanahalli Village Varthurhobli Bangalore 560 103 ………. Appellant [Pan: Aaecm5559R]

270A of the Act.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee is a company engaged in design, development and testing of integrated circuits and provides services to its group companies. For the Assessment 2 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Year 2020-2021, the Assessee had filed its return of income on 07/01/2021 declaring total income of INR.72