ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

e) if any share, security or other property is purchased by or an behalf of the trust or institution from any person referred to in sub-section (3) during the previous year for consideration which is more than adequate; (i) if any share, security or other properly is sold by or on behalf of the trust or institution

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Income Tax Officer, Ward-Intl. Taxation 1(1),Bengaluru dated 12/12/2024 vide DIN and Order No: ITBA/AST/S/147/2024- 25/1071150608(1) passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

e-return. The manual copy of the return filed is filed. As per the AIR and CIB information base, it is also seen that the assessee has deposited a total cash of Rs.1,12,02,680 in the Savings Bank Accounts maintained by him. 3 As per the AIR information, the assessee has also received interest of Rs.1

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

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

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

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

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

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

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

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. SRI. J. KRISHNA PALEMAR, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2011-12

e) are owned by the assessee and part of fixed asset schedule of the Balance Sheet and residential in nature. The assessee might be using these properties for different purposes but it does not make the properties as non residential. (7) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the section

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

Housing and\nPlantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s\n27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of\nthe assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the\nPage 26 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

1) of section 13 of IT Act 1961. 5. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(E) was erred in cancellation of registration of the trust u/s 12A(ab) of IT Act 1961, even though objects of the trust are charitable in nature and are being carried out its activities as per the object

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

Housing and\nPlantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s\n27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of\nthe assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the\nPage 26 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

E-\nassessment scheme, 2019 on the following issues:\ni. Details of assets and liabilities\n\n3.1 Accordingly, the notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were\nissued calling for the details. The assessee has declared rental\nincome from house property, business income as per provisions of\nsection 44AD, capital gains on sale of shares and income from

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

Housing and\nPlantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of\nthe assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the\nPage 26 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada

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

Housing and\nPlantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s\n27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of\nthe assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the\nPage 26 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada

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

Housing and\nPlantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s\n27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of\nthe assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the\n\nPage 26 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

houses,\nprinting presses, hostels, residential quarters and the like.\n(ii) To provide medical relief to the poor, distressed, afflicted and mentally,\nphysically, or psychologically handicapped persons, in India including supply of\nspectacles and other medical, surgical and remedial appliances and for this\npurpose to start, establish, conduct, maintain and manage and help\ndispensaries, hospitals, medical centres, diagnostic centres

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, income from business and income from other ITA No. 2396 & 2397/ bang/2024 A Y : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Shri Chandrakant Shamappa Kpntha Versus DCIT Circle (1) (1) & TPS Hubli sources. This return of income was processed under section 143 (1) of the act on 14 July 2020 determining the assessee's total income

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, income from business and income from other ITA No. 2396 & 2397/ bang/2024 A Y : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Shri Chandrakant Shamappa Kpntha Versus DCIT Circle (1) (1) & TPS Hubli sources. This return of income was processed under section 143 (1) of the act on 14 July 2020 determining the assessee's total income

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

Housing and\nPlantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s\n27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of\nthe assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the\n\nPage 26 of 56\npenalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) and disputed in the present appeals before