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

6) of the Act which states that where an Assessee offers a ‘bonafide’ explanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all material facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such case would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting of income; b) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities other than

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

6) of the Act which states that where an Assessee offers a ‘bonafide’ explanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all material facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such case would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting of income; b) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities other than

SHRISHAILAMALLIKARJUN TRADERS,NARGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

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 the following grounds of appeal. 1. The order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is illegal, baseless and opposed to the facts. The assessee has not been properly heard inspite of specific request being made to provide a personal

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

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

6) of\nthe Act which states that where an Assessee offers a 'bonafide'\nexplanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all\nmaterial facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such\ncase would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting\nof income;\nb) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities\nother than

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 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

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

6) of\nthe Act which states that where an Assessee offers a 'bonafide'\nexplanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all\nmaterial facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such\ncase would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting\nof income;\nb) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities\nother than

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

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased