THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and proceeded to levy penalty on the assessee thereunder. 8.3 On appeal, the learned CIT (Appeals) confirmed the levy of penalty. 8.4 Before us, it was contended that the assessee was under the bona fide belief that he can claim the deduction

M/S STUMP SCHUELE AND SOMAPPA SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Stumpp Schuele & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Somappa Springs Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Ltu, No.139/2, Hosur Road, Circle - 1, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 095. Pan : Aalcs 7347 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sowmya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boazthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-10, Bangalore, Dated 01.02.2018 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Upholding The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Relevant For Disposal Of This Appeal Are As Under: Page 2 Of 9 2.1 The Assessee, A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Supply Of Stabilizer Bars & All Varieties Of Springs, Automobile Components, Spare Parts, Accessories, Etc., Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 Declaring Loss Of (-) Rs.5,34,42,031/- Under Normal Provisions & ‘Book Profits’ Of Rs.2,88,52,729/- Under Section 115Jb Of The Act. The Case Was Taken Up For Assessment For This Assessment Year & The Assessment Was Concluded Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 13.03.2015, Wherein The Assessee’S Loss Was Determined At Rs.4,55,68,066/- In View Of The Following Additions / Deductions:- (I) Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 35(2Ab) – Rs.14,34,982/- (Ii) Disallowance Of Leave Encashment – Rs.64,38,983/-.

271(1)(c) was unwarranted. 3. The learned Commissioner (A), without prejudice ought to have appreciated that the appellant did not suppress any information and had also furnished explanation to prove its bona fides while making the claim of deduction u/ s.35(2AB) of the Act and the quantum of deduction claimed was under bona fide circumstances and thus there

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard\nto sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of\ndifferent orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years.\n2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation,\nheadquartered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S E-COSMOS INDIA P LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and the CO by the assessee are dismissed

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

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed by the Assessing Officer under the following facts. The assessee is a company, engaged in the business of computer software development. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 belatedly on 18.10.2010. In the return of income so filed, the assessee claimed deduction

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard\nto sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of\ndifferent orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years.\n2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation,\nheadquartered

IBM AUSTRALIA 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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (in short \"The Act\") by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard\nto sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of\ndifferent orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years.\n2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation,\nheadquartered

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 13.12 The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench decision in ACIT v. Vireet Investments Ltd 58 ITR (Trib) 313 wherein it was held that when two contrary decisions are ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Page

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

u/s 148 of the Act.\nName of the assessee\nITA No.\nAssessment\nyear\nIBM Corporation\n544/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nIBM Netherland B V\n503/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nIBM United Kingdom Limited\n498/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nCategory ‘E’\nLevy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act where return u/s 139(1) of\nthe Act has not been filed. However, secondment related receipts\nwere offered

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

penalty was to be levied on the tax\nassessed under section 143 or as demanded under section 156 being tax assessed\nminus the amount paid under the provisional assessment order. The hon'ble\nSupreme Court before resorting to the interpretation of term in addition to the\namount of the tax, if any, payable by him as appearing in section 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). However, the AO has not brought anything on record to show that the act of the assessee in filing his return of income has been done with malafide intention or willful and deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The facts have been disclosed by the assessee and there was nothing which would point towards

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2009-10

deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. Being so, there is no question of levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on this

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered