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

271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 9 of 56 Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 Page 9 of 56 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

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

271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 9 of 56 Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

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

271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 9 of 56 Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

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

271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 Page 9 of 56 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 Page 9 of 56 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

COMPAGNIE IBM FRANCE,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

271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 Page 9 of 56 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 Page 9 of 56 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

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

271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 Page 9 of 56 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

IBM ISRAEL 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

271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 Page 9 of 56 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

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

271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 Page 9 of 56 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

IBM AUSTRALIA 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

271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 | Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s 148 Page 9 of 56 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been

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

148 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee submitted that this is a case where audit was not done in time due to the genuine & bonafide reasons and there is no loss of revenue for the Government as the due taxes have been paid in April, 2018 only and accordingly prayed to drop the penalty proceedings u/s 271B

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

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. 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

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

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