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

establishes by itself that the ‘make available’ criteria is satisfied and the subject receipts are taxable as FTS. (Page 23 of the CIT(A) order) - - The CIT(A) has contended that mere MAK Data (supra) ruling is in the context acceptance of tax liability will not of a case where income was voluntarily preclude the levy of the penalty

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

establishes by itself that the ‘make available’ criteria is satisfied and the subject receipts are taxable as FTS. (Page 23 of the CIT(A) order) - - The CIT(A) has contended that mere MAK Data (supra) ruling is in the context acceptance of tax liability will not of a case where income was voluntarily preclude the levy of the penalty

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

establishes by itself that the ‘make available’ criteria is satisfied and the subject receipts are taxable as FTS. (Page 23 of the CIT(A) order) - - The CIT(A) has contended that mere MAK Data (supra) ruling is in the context acceptance of tax liability will not of a case where income was voluntarily preclude the levy of the penalty

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

permanent\nestablishment'. Article 5(2)(k) describes the expression 'permanent establishment'\nand furnishing of services including managerial services, other than those taxable\nunder Section 13 within a Contracting State by an enterprise through employees or\nother personnel. Article 7 deals with business profits and provides that profits of a\nbusiness of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that

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

permanent\nestablishment'. Article 5(2)(k) describes the expression 'permanent establishment'\nand furnishing of services including managerial services, other than those taxable\nunder Section 13 within a Contracting State by an enterprise through employees or\nother personnel. Article 7 deals with business profits and provides that profits of a\nbusiness of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that

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

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

penalty u/s 270A of the Act where return u/s 139(1) of\nthe Act has been filed. However, secondment related receipts were\noffered to tax only in the return filed 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

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

penalty u/s 270A of the Act where return u/s 139(1) of\nthe Act has been filed. However, secondment related receipts were\noffered to tax only in the return filed 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

IBM JAPAN 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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act where original return\nu/s 139(1) of the Act was not filed and receipts were offered to tax\nduring re-assessment proceedings.\n\nName of the assessee\nITA No.\nAssessment\nyear\nIBM Deutschland GMBH (“IBM | 501/Bang/2024 2012-13\nGermany\")\nIBM Canada Limited\n489/Bang/2024 | 2012-13\nIBM Osterreich Internale 504/Bang/2024 2012-13\nBuromaschinen

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Google India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the the Appellant') respectfully submits that the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

IBM JAPAN 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

penalty on the\nassessee.\nThe CIT(A) has rejected IBM's\nreference to the Punjab and Haryana\nHC's ruling in CIT v. Rajiv Garg\n[2008] 175 Taxman 184 (Punjab and\nHaryana HC) by drawing reference to\nSC's ruling in MAK Data P. Ltd. vs\nCIT-II [2013] 38 taxmann.com 43 8\n(SC)\nThe