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) , 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 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

6) of the Act which states that where an Assessee offers a 'bonafide' explanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all material facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such case would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting of income; b) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities other than

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

6) of the Act which states that where an Assessee offers a 'bonafide' explanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all material facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such case would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting of income; b) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities other than

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

6) of the Act which states that where an Assessee offers a 'bonafide' explanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all material facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such case would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting of income; b) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities other than

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

6) of the Act which states that where an Assessee offers a 'bonafide' explanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all material facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such case would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting of income; b) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities other than

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

6) of the Act which states that where an Assessee offers a 'bonafide' explanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all material facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such case would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting of income; b) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities other than

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

6) of the Act which states that where an Assessee offers a 'bonafide' explanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all material facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such case would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting of income; b) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities other than

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

6) of the Act which states that where an Assessee offers a 'bonafide' explanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all material facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such case would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting of income; b) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities other than

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

6) of the Act which states that where an Assessee offers a 'bonafide' explanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all material facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such case would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting of income; b) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities other than

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

6) of the Act which states that where an Assessee offers a 'bonafide' explanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all material facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such case would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting of income; b) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities other than

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

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

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.

270A of the Act, the copy of Demat account statement for the relevant period, copy of the approval issued under Section 151 of the Act, copy of reasons recorded, etc. The learned A.R. submitted that as against the addition of Rs.13,93,176/- under Section 69A of the Act, the assessee has filed an appeal and the same is pending

ASIAN EARTH MOVERS,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TPS, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

section 144B of the Act. 5. The Learned AO erred in computing the capital gain as short-term capital gain without reducing the cost of acquisition and constructing artificial liability to tax. 6. The Learned AO erred in determining the total income at Rs. 67,16,348/- WITHOUT setting off the brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

270A of the Act.” 2. The Assessee is engaged in the business of providing marketing, technical support and research and development services to its Associated Enterprises (AEs). The assessee filed the return of income for assessment year (AY) 2018-19 on 30.11.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.255,636,680. The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny

IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 289/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Ibm India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 12, Subramanya Commissioner Of Arcade, Income-Tax, Bannerghatta Road, Circle 3 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 029. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaaci4403L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Roti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.04.2021 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Passed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment Order Bad In Law 1.1. At The Outset, M/S Ibm India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Appellant' Or 'The Company') Prays That The Order Dated April 30. 2021

270A of the Act. 17. Other grounds 17.1. The NeAC has erred in law and on facts in levying interest of INR 638,31,67,815 under section 234B of the Act. 18. Relief 18.1. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as also all reliefs consequential thereto