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

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 148 IBM United Kingdom 2016- 271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 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

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 148 IBM United Kingdom 2016- 271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 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

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 148 IBM United Kingdom 2016- 271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

16 not offered u/s 148 IBM Japan Limited 2016- 271(1)(c) 494/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 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 148 IBM United Kingdom 2016- 271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s

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

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

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

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

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

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

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

u/s. 271B of the Act were levied by the AO for all these AYs under consideration. Before AO, the assessee submitted his reply stating that the major reason for delay in filing the audit reports was due to the fact that he was suffering from blood pressure & Diabetes & frequently admitted to the hospital. Further, he also submitted that his auditor

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

16 of 17 5.9.1 Thereafter, the Jaipur bench of Tribunal has observed as under: “It is evident from the show cause notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB (APB Page 1) that the AO was not clear as to on what precise charge the appellant was asked to show cause, whether the assessee shall

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)

16,940/- and it is a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and levied the maximum penalty @ 300% amounting to Rs.18,15,246/- for AY 2014-15. Aggrieved by the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) dated 30.01.2020, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VERDE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) initiated separately". The notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act issued by the AO on 22.12.2010 reads as under: "Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRIAD RESORTS AND HOTELS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) initiated separately". The notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act issued by the AO on 22.12.2010 reads as under: "Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 it appears to me that you have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars

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

16 not offered u/s 148 IBM Japan Limited 2016- 271(1)(c) 494/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 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 148 IBM United Kingdom 2016- 271(1)(c) 497/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 17 not offered u/s

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

16 Thus, as can be seen from the above table that the total turnover of the assessee during the each of the assessment years under consideration exceeds Rs. One crore and accordingly the assessee was liable to get his books of accounts audited u/s. 44AB of the Act & required to furnish/upload the same within the due dates as prescribed. However

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

u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately." 12. A reading of the aforesaid order makes it clear that Assessing Authority was not satisfied that there is any concealment of the intent. Further there is no direction for initiation of penalty proceedings could be gathered from the said order also. It is held in the aforesaid judgment that (a) phrases like 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

u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately." 12. A reading of the aforesaid order makes it clear that Assessing Authority was not satisfied that there is any concealment of the intent. Further there is no direction for initiation of penalty proceedings could be gathered from the said order also. It is held in the aforesaid judgment that (a) phrases like 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

u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately." 12. A reading of the aforesaid order makes it clear that Assessing Authority was not satisfied that there is any concealment of the intent. Further there is no direction for initiation of penalty proceedings could be gathered from the said order also. It is held in the aforesaid judgment that (a) phrases like 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

u/s 271(1)(c) initiated separately." 12. A reading of the aforesaid order makes it clear that Assessing Authority was not satisfied that there is any concealment of the intent. Further there is no direction for initiation of penalty proceedings could be gathered from the said order also. It is held in the aforesaid judgment that (a) phrases like penalty