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

1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

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

1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1)(c) of the Act (i. e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide' intention

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

1)(c) of the Act (i. e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide' intention

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

1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

M/S. MEDI ASSIST INSURANCE TPA PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

capital gain notwithstanding the period for which its individual assets were owned and held. (c) The net worth of the undertaking or the division is deemed to be the cost of acquisition and the cost of improvement for the purposes of sections 48 and 49. What is “net worth” has been defined in Explanation 1 to section 50B to mean

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

1)(c) of the Act (i. e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide' intention

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1)(c) of the Act (i. e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide' intention

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1)(c) of the Act (i. e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide' intention

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

1)(c) of the Act (i. e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide' intention

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

1)(c) of the Act (i. e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide' intention

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

1)(c) of the Act (i. e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide' intention

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

1)(c) of the Act (i. e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide' intention

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

6) issued by him. This objection in our view is also unsustainable because the Assessee claims exemption for investing consideration received on transfer by constructing a house. For construction of a house there is no requirement of registration under the Registration Act, 1908. (c) According to section 54F(2) the amount of capital gain which is not appropriated

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

Capital Gain Deposit Scheme A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek with the banks on or before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1). Our attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 54. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the judgment and order of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

SHRI. MUNINAGA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for A

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

capital gains due to excess claim of cost of acquisition to the extent of Rs.20,50,216 and (ii) Deleting the disallowance of Rs.6,70,40,704 towards the claim of exemption under section 54B of the Act, holding that the assessee was entitled to this exemption, which has been unjustifiably denied. 3.6 Aggrieved by this order

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

6(l)(c) and expln. (b) specifically. Thus no judgment contrary to Hon'ble Kerala High Court has been cited by the Revenue. It is a trite law that in Income tax proceedings the words shall be given plain and ordinary meaning and interpretation should be resorted only when the meaning is ambiguous. We are unable to see any ambiguity

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

6(l)(c) and expln. (b) specifically. Thus no judgment contrary to Hon'ble Kerala High Court has been cited by the Revenue. It is a trite law that in Income tax proceedings the words shall be given plain and ordinary meaning and interpretation should be resorted only when the meaning is ambiguous. We are unable to see any ambiguity