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 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 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

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 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

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 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 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

M/S ARROW ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.DIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assesssee’s appeals are dismissed, the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross-Objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri. S. Jayaraman

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and u/s 271B and accordingly issued demand notices. Aggrieved by the finding that the Singapore branch had business connection in India and against the finding that the Singapore Company had a PE in India and determination of 40% of the total profits as attributable to the Indian operations and against the determination of adjustment

NXP INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. All the above grounds may be considered independent and without prejudice of each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

202 ITR 222 has also held as under - “The effect of binding precedents in India is that the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all the courts. Indeed, article 141 of the Constitution embodies the rule of precedent. All the subordinate courts are bound by the judgments of the High Courts. A single judge of a High Court

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

penalty proceedings under Section 274 read with Section .271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the Appellant has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Page 5 of 40 The Appellant submits that each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend

PROWIN WEALTH MANAGEMENT ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 40(b)(v) r.w. CBDT Circular 739 dated 25/03/1996. Simultaneously, the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. 3. Aggrieved with the said assessment as well as the penalty proceedings, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 386 days in respect of the quantum appeal and 202

PROWIN WEALTH MANAGEMENT ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 40(b)(v) r.w. CBDT Circular 739 dated 25/03/1996. Simultaneously, the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. 3. Aggrieved with the said assessment as well as the penalty proceedings, the assessee filed appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 386 days in respect of the quantum appeal and 202

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. It is submitted that the investments were made out of surplus funds and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the decision of PCIT v. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society 392 ITR 74 wherein it was held that the interest earned on deposits in the co- operative banks