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

u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under section 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under section 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of different orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years. 2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation, headquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the globe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under section 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately on the concealed income as detected above.” 8.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2014-15, the ld. AO made similar findings and finally made addition by stating as follows: “On verification of the copies of the VAT assessment order for the financial year submitted by the VAT authorities u/s

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

2)\nBangalore\n\nPAN NO: AABCI4837K\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\n\nAppellant by\nShri Sharath Rao, A.R.,\nShri Rajat Nahata, A.R. &\nShri Dhiraj R., A.R.\nRespondent by\nShri D.K. Mishra, D.R.\nDate of Hearing\n10.05.2024\nDate of Pronouncement\n20.05.2024\nORDER\nPER BENCH:\nIncome Tax Appeals at Sl.Nos.1 to 18 above are relating to\nsustaining the penalty levied u/s 271

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 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 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of\ndifferent orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years.\n2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation,\nheadquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the\nglobe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under\nsection 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

271 (Delhi - Trib.) (para 20) {CLI 2 Pg.\n629}.\n4.11. Hence the approval under Section 153D dated 28.09.2021 is bad\nand invalid. Consequently, the assessment orders for the AYs 2018-\n19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are bad and invalid without valid\napproval under Section 153D.\n5. As regards revised return filed being invalid and contrary to\nSection

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

2)\nBangalore\nPAN NO: AABCI4837K\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nAppellant by\nShri Sharath Rao, A.R.,\nShri Rajat Nahata, A.R. &\nShri Dhiraj R., A.R.\nRespondent by\nShri D.K. Mishra, D.R.\nDate of Hearing\n10.05.2024\nDate of Pronouncement\n20.05.2024\nORDER\nPER BENCH:\nIncome Tax Appeals at Sl.Nos.1 to 18 above are relating to\nsustaining the penalty levied u/s 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

2)\nBangalore\nPAN NO: AABCI4837K\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nAppellant by\nShri Sharath Rao, A.R.,\nShri Rajat Nahata, A.R. &\nShri Dhiraj R., A.R.\nRespondent by\nShri D.K. Mishra, D.R.\nDate of Hearing\n10.05.2024\nDate of Pronouncement\n20.05.2024\nORDER\nPER BENCH:\nIncome Tax Appeals at Sl.Nos.1 to 18 above are relating to\nsustaining the penalty levied u/s 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

2)\nBangalore\nPAN NO: AABCI4837K\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\n\nAppellant by\nShri Sharath Rao, A.R.,\nShri Rajat Nahata, A.R. &\nShri Dhiraj R., A.R.\nRespondent by\nShri D.K. Mishra, D.R.\nDate of Hearing\n10.05.2024\nDate of Pronouncement\n20.05.2024\n\nORDER\nPER BENCH:\nIncome Tax Appeals at Sl.Nos.1 to 18 above are relating to\nsustaining the penalty levied u/s 271

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

2)\nBangalore\nPAN NO: AABCI4837K\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nAppellant by\nShri Sharath Rao, A.R.,\nShri Rajat Nahata, A.R. &\nShri Dhiraj R., A.R.\nRespondent by\nShri D.K. Mishra, D.R.\nDate of Hearing\n10.05.2024\nDate of Pronouncement\n20.05.2024\nORDER\nPER BENCH:\nIncome Tax Appeals at Sl.Nos.1 to 18 above are relating to\nsustaining the penalty levied u/s 271

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

section\n195(2) and section 197 of the Act are\nin the nature of safeguard sections to\nmake sure that taxes are rightfully\ndeducted on payments.\nRebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations\nProvisions of section 195(2)/ 197 of the\nAct are not mandatory and therefore the\nAO cannot be expected to seek recourse\nto the same.\nTherefore

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

2)\nBangalore\nPAN NO: AABCI4837K\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nAppellant by\nShri Sharath Rao, A.R.,\nShri Rajat Nahata, A.R. &\nShri Dhiraj R., A.R.\nRespondent by\nShri D.K. Mishra, D.R.\nDate of Hearing\n10.05.2024\nDate of Pronouncement\n20.05.2024\nORDER\nPER BENCH:\nIncome Tax Appeals at Sl.Nos.1 to 18 above are relating to\nsustaining the penalty levied u/s 271