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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty 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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty 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

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty 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

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty 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

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

2 thereof intended to directory'. In other words, while payment of interest is mandatory levy of penalty is discretionary. It is trite position of law that discretion is vested and authority has to be exercised in a reasonable and rational manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Plain reading of section 271AAB

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty 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

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)

19 has held that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear

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

2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the notice issued under section 271 r.w.s 274, without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated against concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is invalid and thereby setting aside the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c)? 3. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that

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

2. The CIT(A) erred in holding that the notice issued under section 271 r.w.s 274, without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated against concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is invalid and thereby setting aside the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c)? 3. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that

R.AJITH ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

2. The assessee in the above appeals is Mr.R.Ajith. He is assessed in the status of an individual. He is engaged in real estate business. There was a survey u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return

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

2. The assessee in the above appeals is Mr.R.Ajith. He is assessed in the status of an individual. He is engaged in real estate business. There was a survey u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return

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

2. The assessee in the above appeals is Mr.R.Ajith. He is assessed in the status of an individual. He is engaged in real estate business. There was a survey u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return

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

2. The assessee in the above appeals is Mr.R.Ajith. He is assessed in the status of an individual. He is engaged in real estate business. There was a survey u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return

K.RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

2. The assessee in the above appeals is Mr.R.Ajith. He is assessed in the status of an individual. He is engaged in real estate business. There was a survey u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return

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

2. The assessee in the above appeals is Mr.R.Ajith. He is assessed in the status of an individual. He is engaged in real estate business. There was a survey u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return

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

2. The assessee in the above appeals is Mr.R.Ajith. He is assessed in the status of an individual. He is engaged in real estate business. There was a survey u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return

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

2. The assessee in the above appeals is Mr.R.Ajith. He is assessed in the status of an individual. He is engaged in real estate business. There was a survey u/s. 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] conducted in the case of assessee’s father Mr.K.Ramaswamy. The survey was conducted on 22.7.2013. The assessee had not filed return

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) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "The Act") by NFAC and Sl.Nos.19 to 24 are with regard to sustaining penalty 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