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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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\n139) and thereby contending that the\nAssessee had not disclosed all the facts\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(1)(c)\nof the Act in respect

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

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

u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible

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 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