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

143(3) of the Act were issued along with show- cause notices for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the matters pertaining to AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17 and under section 270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20 respectively; IBM foreign entities had filed a detailed response during

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

143(3) of the Act were issued along with show- cause notices for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the matters pertaining to AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17 and under section 270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20 respectively; IBM foreign entities had filed a detailed response during

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

143(3) of the Act were issued along with show- cause notices for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the matters pertaining to AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17 and under section 270A of the Act for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20 respectively; IBM foreign entities had filed a detailed response during

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

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) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153D of the Act, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in levying a penalty of Rs.1,14,75,000/- u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Act, without considering

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)

u/s 274 read with section 271( penalty levied is not sustainable. This view is further supported penalty levied is not sustainable. This view is further supported penalty levied is not sustainable. This view is further supported in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerala Meadows 73 taxmann.com CIT vs. SSA's Emerala Meadows 73 taxmann.com

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) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

143[3] of the Act, dated 09/12/2019, accepting the returned income amounting to Rs.13,56,930/-. Further during the course of the assessment proceedings it was observed by the AO that during the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to Assessment year 2017-18 the assessee has a turnover of Rs. 2,64,91,145/- from its business, as such

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty

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

Section 271(1B) do not apply for the reason that the re-assessment order does not contain any direction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 7.3. The Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the expression 'penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c), 271B separately' stated in the re-assessment order, cannot be regarded as 'direction for initiation of penalty