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 Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

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 Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

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 Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

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) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

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

22,110/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of assessee on 14.11.2017, during the course of search, cash of Rs.3,72,50,000/- was found and seized from the office premises of the assessee. The managing director of the company admitted in the statement recorded u/s. 132 of the Act, that

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

22 of 1995, Section 48, for certain words Bhadravathi Ramalingasetty Manjunath Setty, Shivamogga Page 9 of 12 (w.e.f. 1.7.1995).], the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer" (w.e.f. 1.4.1988).] may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to one-half per cent. of the total sales, turnover

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

22 of 1995, Section 48, for certain words (w.e.f. 1.7.1995).], the [Assessing Officer] [ Substituted by Act 4 of 1988, Section 2, for " Income-tax Officer" (w.e.f. 1.4.1988).] may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to one-half per cent. of the total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case

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 Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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 Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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\nallowed

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

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 Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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 Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

IBM CANADA 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 Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide