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 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

133A of the Act. No bonafide explanations were provided under Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the income being surrendered. The only argument made by the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, penalty cannot be levied. Page 28 of 56 Observation

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)

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is justified as the same is levied on a particular limb of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Admittedly we find that while passing the assessment order, the ld. AO, vide para 4 of his order, recorded furnishing of inaccurate particulars

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

133A of the Act. No bonafide explanations were provided under Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the income being surrendered. The only argument made by the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, penalty cannot be levied. Page 28 of 56 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024

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

133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return of income in the aforesaid 3 assessment years and therefore notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee

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

133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return of income in the aforesaid 3 assessment years and therefore notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee

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

133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return of income in the aforesaid 3 assessment years and therefore notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee

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

133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return of income in the aforesaid 3 assessment years and therefore notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee

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

133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return of income in the aforesaid 3 assessment years and therefore notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee

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

133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return of income in the aforesaid 3 assessment years and therefore notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee

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

133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return of income in the aforesaid 3 assessment years and therefore notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee

K RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE 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

133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return of income in the aforesaid 3 assessment years and therefore notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee

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

section 133A of the Act was carried out on 1.2.2008, but the assessee could not furnish evidence in support of the claim. Subsequently, the assessee admitted that he did not maintain any bills or vouchers for the same and agreed for disallowance of the amount claimed. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 271

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, not to levy penalty and the assessing officer ought to have exercised his discretion judiciously and ought not to have imposed penalty in a mechanical manner, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Without prejudice, the authorities below failed to appreciate that the returned income was accepted and there were

M/S SAMANTHU BUSINESS FORMS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed and the assessee’s Stay Petition is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazsp No.201/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Samanthu Business Forms Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 37/3, Basavanapura Main Road, Income-Tax, Bhattarahalli, Beedarahalli, Central Circle 2(2), Bangalore – 560 049. Bangalore. Pan : Aabcs 9498 Q Appellant Respondent

133A of the Act was conducted at the assessee’s business premises on 20.03.2014. The case was taken up for scrutiny for this Assessment Year and the assessment was concluded under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 16.02.2015 and the AO simultaneously initiated proceedings under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act. Subsequently, the AO passed

M. VEERABHADRAIAH,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for A

u/s. 133A of the Act. 15. For the reasons given above we hold that there can be no justification for imposition of penalty on the income offered in the return of income by the Assessee for both the A.Ys., because there cannot be any penalty on income which is declared in a return of income, on the facts and circumstances

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

u/s 271(1)(c) ofIT Act\nand disputed in the present appeals before us are hereby cancelled.\"\n(Emphasis Supplied)\nCIT vs Harsh International Pvt Ltd (ITA 620/2019, 622/2019 and CM\nAppl 30811/2019, 301813/2019)\n“Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the\nimpugned order, this Court is of the view that the ITAT was right