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

section 271(1)(c) Data P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38 of the Act in respect of the income being taxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the surrendered. The only argument made by above contention the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, (Page 10 of the CIT(A)’s order) penalty cannot be levied

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

section 271(1)(c) Data P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38 of the Act in respect of the income being taxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the surrendered. The only argument made by above contention the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, (Page 10 of the CIT(A)’s order) penalty cannot be levied

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

section 271(1)(c) Data P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38 of the Act in respect of the income being taxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the surrendered. The only argument made by above contention the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, (Page 10 of the CIT(A)’s order) penalty cannot be levied

SRI. CHINNAYELLAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR, ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

38 pages consisting of the documents/records filed/available before the lower Authorities. 7. Before us, ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that as this is the first year of the audit, the assessee was under the honest and bonafide belief that there is no due date for filing the Sri Chinnayellappa Chandrashekar, Bangalore Page 9 of 15 audit report separately

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the\nabove contention\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 of the income being\nsurrendered

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

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the\nabove contention\n(Page 10 of the CIT(A)'s order)\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

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

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the\nabove contention\n(Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order)\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

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

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the\nabove contention\n(Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order)\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

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

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the\nabove contention\n(Page 10 of the CIT(A)'s order)\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

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the\nabove contention\n(Page 10 of the CIT(A)'s order)\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

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

38,19,629/- only. In the profit and loss account, the assessee claimed an expenditure of ₹5,55,20,973/- under the head "investment in companies written off." Additionally, the assessee also claimed a deduction for interest expenses under section 57 of the Act. The assessee stated that he had promoted two companies, namely M/s Lad’s Technologies

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

10,38,410 after incorporating the issues raised in the order under section 263 of the Act. The A.O. also simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3.5 Aggrieved by the order of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dt.28.12.2011, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) – III, Bangalore

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

38,008/ Rs.27,12,000/- - Tax sought to have been evaded (A)-(B) Rs. 2,62,650/ (D) - p Minimum Penalty leviable @ 100% Rs. 2,62,650/ Maximum penalty leviable @ 300% Rs. 7,87,950/ - (F) - Penalty levied at 100% Rs. 2,62,650/ (G) - 15. The ld.AR reiterated the submissions before the lower authorities and filed a written synopsis

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

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the\nabove contention\n(Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order)\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

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

penalty on the\nassessee.\nThe CIT(A) has relied on the ruling of\nthe Supreme Court ("SC") in MAK\nData P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the\nabove contention\n(Page 10 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nThe CIT(A) has contended that the\nexplanations offered by IBM are not\nbonafide, since

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

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the\nabove contention\n(Page 10 of the CIT(A)'s order)\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

M/S GOGGA GURUSHANTHIAH & BROS.,HOSPET vs. ACIT, BELLARY

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2007-08 M/S. Gogga Gurushantiah Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of & Brothers, Income-Tax, P. No. 4, Mine Owners & Circle – I, Mineral Grinders Nehru Co-Op Bellary. Colony, Hospet. Pan : Aacfg 6895 M Appellant Respondent

38,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2007-08, the assessee has filed this appeal wherein it has raised the following grounds: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) is not justified is up holding the proposition of The Assessing Officer in levy of Penalty U/s 271

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

38\ntaxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the\nabove contention\n(Page 10 of the CIT(A)'s order)\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