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 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, 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

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 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 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

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

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

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

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 Income Tax Act,\n1961 (in short \"The Act\") by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard\nto sustaining penalty 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

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 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 Income Tax Act,\n1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard\nto sustaining penalty 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

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 Income Tax Act,\n1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard\nto sustaining penalty 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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (in short \"The Act\") by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard\nto sustaining penalty 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

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 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

3 to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld\n(Page 10 of the CIT(A)'s order)\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

IBM CANADA 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 Income Tax Act,\n1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard\nto sustaining penalty 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

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) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (in short \"The Act\") by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard\nto sustaining penalty 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