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 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 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

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

201 TTJ 307 (JP), the coordinate bench has held at para 5 page 7 of its order as under: "It is pertinent to note that the disclosure of additional income in the statement recorded under section 132(4) itself is not sufficient to levy the penalty under section 271 AAB of the Act until and unless the income so disclosed

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

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

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

u/s 148 of the Act.\nName of the assessee\nITA No.\nAssessment\nyear\nIBM Corporation\n544/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nIBM Netherland B V\n503/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nIBM United Kingdom Limited\n498/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nCategory ‘E’\nLevy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act where return u/s 139(1) of\nthe Act has not been filed. However, secondment related receipts\nwere offered

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

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

penalty u/s 270A of the Act where return u/s 139(1) of\nthe Act has been filed. However, secondment related receipts were\noffered to tax only in the return filed u/s 148 of the Act.\nName of the assessee\nITA No.\nAssessment\nyear\nIBM Corporation\n544/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nIBM Netherland B V\n503/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nIBM United Kingdom Limited\n498/Bang/2024

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S.DELL INDIA PVT.LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s. 201(1A). In our considerate view, the assessee(deductor) gets exonerated from the applicability of TDS provisions on disallowance of the expenditure in question under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. This rational is based on the scheme of Section 40(a)(i)/(ia), which is aimed at ensuring that an expenditure should not be allowed

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s. 201(1A). In our considerate view, the assessee(deductor) gets exonerated from the applicability of TDS provisions on disallowance of the expenditure in question under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. This rational is based on the scheme of Section 40(a)(i)/(ia), which is aimed at ensuring that an expenditure should not be allowed

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s. 201(1A). In our considerate view, the assessee(deductor) gets exonerated from the applicability of TDS provisions on disallowance of the expenditure in question under section 40(a)(i)/(ia) of the Act. This rational is based on the scheme of Section 40(a)(i)/(ia), which is aimed at ensuring that an expenditure should not be allowed

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

penalty u/s 270A of the Act where return u/s 139(1) of\nthe Act has been filed. However, secondment related receipts were\noffered to tax only in the return filed u/s 148 of the Act.\nName of the assessee\nITA No.\nAssessment\nyear\nIBM Corporation\n544/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nIBM Netherland B V\n503/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nIBM United Kingdom Limited\n498/Bang/2024

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

IBM CHINA HONG KONG LIMITED,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

section\n195(2) and section 197 of the Act are\nin the nature of safeguard sections to\nmake sure that taxes are rightfully\ndeducted on payments.\nRebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations\nProvisions of section 195(2)/ 197 of the\nAct are not mandatory and therefore the\nAO cannot be expected to seek recourse\nto the same.\nTherefore

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

IBM JAPAN 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

SRINIVAS RUDRAPPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

201(3) of the Act. As a consequence, the order passed by the Ld.AO is held to be bad in law and stands quashed. ITA Nos.702 & 703/Bang/2022 Page 13 Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 on the legal issue raised in Ground no.6. 7. Now coming to the merits of the case