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

3 to section not file a return under section 139 of the 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld Act basis: - IBM Corp’s assessment order for AY (Page 10 of the CIT(A)’s order) 2011-12 which had attained finality - Plethora of judicial precedents in assessee’s favor on the secondment matter, including the Special Bench referral

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

3 to section not file a return under section 139 of the 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld Act basis: - IBM Corp’s assessment order for AY (Page 10 of the CIT(A)’s order) 2011-12 which had attained finality - Plethora of judicial precedents in assessee’s favor on the secondment matter, including the Special Bench referral

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

3 to section not file a return under section 139 of the 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld Act basis: - IBM Corp’s assessment order for AY (Page 10 of the CIT(A)’s order) 2011-12 which had attained finality - Plethora of judicial precedents in assessee’s favor on the secondment matter, including the Special Bench referral

SIMPLEX TMC PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

3) of section 271AAB: The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as maybe, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. The legislature has included the provisions of section 274 and section 275 of the Act in 271AAB of the Act with clear intention to consider the imposition of penalty judicially. Section 274 deals

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

271(1)(c) case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has\nbeen filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return\nfiled under section 148 of the Act\nCompagnie IBM\n2013-\n271(1)(c)\n545/Bang/2024\nFiled but\nIn ROI filed\nFrance\n14\nnot offered\nu/s 148\nCompagnie IBM\n2015-\n271

BHADRAVATHI RAMALINGASETTY MANJUNATH SETTY,BHADRAVATHI vs. ITO WARD-1 TPS , SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

271-G' by Finance Act, 2015 (No. 20 of 2015), dated 14.5.2015.][, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272-A, sub-section (1) of section 272-AA or ] [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 26 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).][section 272-B or] [ Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 106 (w.e.f

SHRISHAILAMALLIKARJUN TRADERS,NARGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

271-G' by Finance Act, 2015 (No. 20 of 2015), dated 14.5.2015.][, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272-A, sub-section (1) of section 272-AA or ] [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 26 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).][section 272-B or] [ Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 106 (w.e.f

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) case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has\nbeen filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return\nfiled under section 148 of the Act\nCompagnie IBM\n2013-\n271(1)(c)\n545/Bang/2024\nFiled but\nIn ROI filed\nFrance\n14\nnot offered\nu/s 148\nCompagnie IBM\n2015-\n271

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRIAD RESORTS AND HOTELS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

3 of the appellant is allowed. Consequently, the remaining grounds of appeal become only academic and as such no specific adjudication is required for those grounds.” 7. We find that ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the notice issued by the AO u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1) of IT Act, 1961 and in that notice, the AO has not struck down

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VERDE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

3 of the appellant is allowed. Consequently, the remaining grounds of appeal become only academic and as such no specific adjudication is required for those grounds.” 7. We find that ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the notice issued by the AO u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1) of IT Act, 1961 and in that notice, the AO has not struck down

MR. SHIVAKUMAR MAHADEVAIAH ,MYSORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), MYSORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

3 Mr. Shivakumar Mahadevaiah 5. Thereafter, the Ld. AO passed a Penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by levying the maximum penalty of Rs.18,15,246/- on 30.01.2020 holding that the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars of income to the extent of Rs.20,16,940/- and it is a fit case for levy of penalty under

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

u/s\n139) and thereby contending that the\nAssessee had not disclosed all the facts\nMAK Data (supra) ruling is in the context\nof a case where income was voluntarily\noffered pursuant to a survey proceeding\nunder section 133A of the Act. No\nbonafide explanations were provided\nunder Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c)\nof the Act in respect

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE--2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

3 assessment orders as follows:- “Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), 271B, separately”. He submitted that such initiation of penalty proceedings in the order of assessment does not reflect proper recording of satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and in this regard drew our attention to a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case

R.AJITH ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

3 assessment orders as follows:- “Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), 271B, separately”. He submitted that such initiation of penalty proceedings in the order of assessment does not reflect proper recording of satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and in this regard drew our attention to a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case

SHRI. AJITH R,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

3 assessment orders as follows:- “Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), 271B, separately”. He submitted that such initiation of penalty proceedings in the order of assessment does not reflect proper recording of satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and in this regard drew our attention to a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case

K.RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

3 assessment orders as follows:- “Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), 271B, separately”. He submitted that such initiation of penalty proceedings in the order of assessment does not reflect proper recording of satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and in this regard drew our attention to a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

3 assessment orders as follows:- “Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), 271B, separately”. He submitted that such initiation of penalty proceedings in the order of assessment does not reflect proper recording of satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and in this regard drew our attention to a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case

SHRI. AJITH R,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

3 assessment orders as follows:- “Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c), 271B, separately”. He submitted that such initiation of penalty proceedings in the order of assessment does not reflect proper recording of satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and in this regard drew our attention to a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case