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

271-G' by Finance Act, 2015 (No. 20 of 2015), dated 14.5.2015.][, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272-A, sub-section (1) of section 272-AA or ] [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 26 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).][section 272-B or] [ Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 106 (w.e.f

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

271-G' by Finance Act, 2015 (No. 20 of 2015), dated 14.5.2015.][, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272-A, sub-section (1) of section 272-AA or ] [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 26 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).][section 272-B or] [ Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 106 (w.e.f

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

26 of 56 penalties levied u/s 27l(l)(c) and disputed in the present appeals before us, are not sustainable. Accordingly, the penalties levied u/s 27l(l)(c) ofIT Act and disputed in the present appeals before us are hereby cancelled.” (Emphasis Supplied)  CIT vs Harsh International Pvt Ltd (ITA 620/2019, 622/2019 and CM Appl 30811/2019, 301813/2019) “Having heard

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

26 of 56 penalties levied u/s 27l(l)(c) and disputed in the present appeals before us, are not sustainable. Accordingly, the penalties levied u/s 27l(l)(c) ofIT Act and disputed in the present appeals before us are hereby cancelled.” (Emphasis Supplied)  CIT vs Harsh International Pvt Ltd (ITA 620/2019, 622/2019 and CM Appl 30811/2019, 301813/2019) “Having heard

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

26 of 56 penalties levied u/s 27l(l)(c) and disputed in the present appeals before us, are not sustainable. Accordingly, the penalties levied u/s 27l(l)(c) ofIT Act and disputed in the present appeals before us are hereby cancelled.” (Emphasis Supplied)  CIT vs Harsh International Pvt Ltd (ITA 620/2019, 622/2019 and CM Appl 30811/2019, 301813/2019) “Having heard

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

26 of 56 penalties levied u/s 27l(l)(c) and disputed in the present appeals before us, are not sustainable. Accordingly, the penalties levied u/s 27l(l)(c) ofIT Act and disputed in the present appeals before us are hereby cancelled.” (Emphasis Supplied)  CIT vs Harsh International Pvt Ltd (ITA 620/2019, 622/2019 and CM Appl 30811/2019, 301813/2019) “Having heard

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

26 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\npenalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) and disputed in the present appeals before us,\nare not sustainable. Accordingly, the penalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) ofIT Act\nand disputed in the present appeals before us are hereby cancelled.\"\n(Emphasis Supplied

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

26 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\npenalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) and disputed in the present appeals before us,\nare not sustainable. Accordingly, the penalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) ofIT Act\nand disputed in the present appeals before us are hereby cancelled.\"\n(Emphasis Supplied

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

26 of 56\npenalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) and disputed in the present appeals before us,\nare not sustainable. Accordingly, the penalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) ofIT Act\nand disputed in the present appeals before us are hereby cancelled.\"\n(Emphasis Supplied)\nCIT vs Harsh International Pvt Ltd (ITA 620/2019, 622/2019 and CM\nAppl 30811/2019, 301813/2019)\n“Having

SHRI S KRISHNA PRASAD ,BALLARI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

u/s 271AAB of the I.T Act, 1961. 24. Thus, we notice that both the tax authorities are not clear about the charge for which the penalty was imposed. An identical issue was considered by the Chennai bench of Tribunal in the case of R. Elangovan (supra), wherein the Tribunal has observed as under:- “…. It is clear from the sub-section

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

26 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\n\npenalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) and disputed in the present appeals before us,\nare not sustainable. Accordingly, the penalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) ofIT Act\nand disputed in the present appeals before us are hereby cancelled.\"\n(Emphasis

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

26 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\npenalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) and disputed in the present appeals before us,\nare not sustainable. Accordingly, the penalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) ofIT Act\nand disputed in the present appeals before us are hereby cancelled.\"\n(Emphasis Supplied

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

26 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\npenalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) and disputed in the present appeals before us,\nare not sustainable. Accordingly, the penalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) ofIT Act\nand disputed in the present appeals before us are hereby cancelled.\"\n(Emphasis Supplied