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) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 9 of 56 Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

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) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 9 of 56 Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

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) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 9 of 56 Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

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

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

13 of 17 “63. In the light of what is stated above, what emerges is as under: a. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability. b. Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations or liabilities. c. Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability. d. Existence

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

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

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

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

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

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 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) 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 Filed but\nIn ROI filed\nFrance\n14\nnot offered\nu/s 148\nCompagnie IBM\n2015-\n271

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c). Grounds of appeal 3,4, and 5 are hereby allowed. 11. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 12. The learned DR before us argued that, in the facts of this case, the learned CIT(A) was not correct in deleting the penalty. The learned

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