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

14 not offered u/s 148 2015- 271(1)(c) 493/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed IBM Japan Limited 16 not offered u/s 148 2016- 271(1)(c) 494/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed IBM Japan Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2014- 271(1)(c) 542/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 15 not offered u/s

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

14 not offered u/s 148 2015- 271(1)(c) 493/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed IBM Japan Limited 16 not offered u/s 148 2016- 271(1)(c) 494/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed IBM Japan Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2014- 271(1)(c) 542/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 15 not offered u/s

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

14 not offered u/s 148 2015- 271(1)(c) 493/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed IBM Japan Limited 16 not offered u/s 148 2016- 271(1)(c) 494/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed IBM Japan Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2014- 271(1)(c) 542/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 15 not offered u/s

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

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

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

14 of 2001, Section 94 (w.e.f. 1.4.2002).][, section 271-BB,] [ Inserted by Act 12 of 1990, Section 50 (w.r.e.f. 1.4.1990).] [section 271-C, section 271-CA] [ Substituted by Act 21 of 2006, Section 55, for " section 271-C" (w.e.f. 1.4.2007).][, section 271-D, section 271-E, ] [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 26 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).][section 271-F, ] [Substituted

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

3,14,56,152 7,71,29,484 7,34,47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days

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

3,14,56,152 7,71,29,484 7,34,47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days

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

3,14,56,152 7,71,29,484 7,34,47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days

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

3,14,56,152 7,71,29,484 7,34,47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days

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

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

3. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee, urging ground No.4 in the appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13, contended that the notices dated 29.02.2016 issued by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings were not in accordance with law and on this ground alone the order imposing penalty should be quashed. The learned Counsel

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH, HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

3. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee, urging ground No.4 in the appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13, contended that the notices dated 29.02.2016 issued by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings were not in accordance with law and on this ground alone the order imposing penalty should be quashed. The learned Counsel

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH, HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

3. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee, urging ground No.4 in the appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13, contended that the notices dated 29.02.2016 issued by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings were not in accordance with law and on this ground alone the order imposing penalty should be quashed. The learned Counsel

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

3. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee, urging ground No.4 in the appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13, contended that the notices dated 29.02.2016 issued by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings were not in accordance with law and on this ground alone the order imposing penalty should be quashed. The learned Counsel

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

3. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee, urging ground No.4 in the appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13, contended that the notices dated 29.02.2016 issued by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings were not in accordance with law and on this ground alone the order imposing penalty should be quashed. The learned Counsel

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