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) Data P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38 of the Act in respect of the income being taxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the surrendered. The only argument made by above contention the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, (Page 10/11/15/16 of the CIT(A)’s order) penalty cannot be levied

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) Data P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38 of the Act in respect of the income being taxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the surrendered. The only argument made by above contention the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, (Page 10/11/15/16 of the CIT(A)’s order) penalty cannot be levied

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) Data P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38 of the Act in respect of the income being taxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the surrendered. The only argument made by above contention the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, (Page 10/11/15/16 of the CIT(A)’s order) penalty cannot be levied

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) Data P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38 of the Act in respect of the income being taxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the surrendered. The only argument made by above contention the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, (Page 10/11/15/16 of the CIT(A)’s order) penalty cannot be levied

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Bhadravathi Ramalingasetty Manjunath Setty, Shivamogga Page 2 of 12 Bhadravathi Ramalingasetty Manjunath Setty, Shivamogga Page 3 of 12 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed belated return of income u/s

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of AO is bad in law and against the decision of higher appellate authority. 2. Could A.O be appreciated for not considering the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the AY 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal. 1. The orders of the authorities below in so far as levying penalty U/s 271B of the act against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances

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)\nof the Act in respect of the income being\nsurrendered. The only argument made by\nthe Assessee was that it voluntarily\noffered receipts to tax and therefore,\npenalty cannot be levied.\n(Page 10/11/15/16 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nIn the case of IBM, the matter in respect\nof taxability of secondment expenses\nwhich

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

250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A(2)(a) of the Act.\n(Page 15 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the judicial\nprecedents of DIT(IT) vs Abbey Business\nRebuttal

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

250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A(2)(a) of the Act.\n(Page 15 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the judicial\nprecedents of DIT(IT) vs Abbey Business\nRebuttal

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

250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A(2)(a) of the Act.\n(Page 15 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nRebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations\nWhile the assessment order mentions\nunder-reporting, the penalty

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

250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A(2)(a) of the Act.\n(Page 15 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the judicial\nprecedents of DIT(IT) vs Abbey Business\nRebuttal

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under section 139\nbasis the IBM Corporation's order

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

250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A(2)(a) of the Act.\n(Page 15 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the judicial\nprecedents of DIT(IT) vs Abbey Business\nRebuttal

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

250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A(2)(a) of the Act.\n(Page 15 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the judicial\nprecedents of DIT(IT) vs Abbey Business\nRebuttal

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

250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A(2)(a) of the Act.\n(Page 15 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the judicial\nprecedents of DIT(IT) vs Abbey Business\nServices India

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

250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A(2)(a) / 270A(2)(b) of the Act.\n(Page 14 of the CIT(A) order)\nRebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations\nWhile the assessment order mentions\nunder-reporting

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

250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A(2)(a) of the Act.\n(Page 15 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nRebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations\nWhile the assessment order mentions\nunder-reporting, the penalty

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

250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A(2)(a) of the Act.\n(Page 15 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the judicial\nprecedents of DIT(IT) vs Abbey Business\nServices India