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

27 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - - Assessee did not offer the FTS receipts In addition to the above, legal to tax under section 139 of the Act submissions, it is submitted that IBM - Receipts were offered to tax only after India has reported such receipts in 3CEB - proceedings under section

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

27 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - - Assessee did not offer the FTS receipts In addition to the above, legal to tax under section 139 of the Act submissions, it is submitted that IBM - Receipts were offered to tax only after India has reported such receipts in 3CEB - proceedings under section

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

27 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - - Assessee did not offer the FTS receipts In addition to the above, legal to tax under section 139 of the Act submissions, it is submitted that IBM - Receipts were offered to tax only after India has reported such receipts in 3CEB - proceedings under section

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

27 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) - Assessee did not offer the FTS receipts to tax under section 139 of the Act - Receipts were offered to tax only after proceedings under section 201 of the Act were initiated in case of IBM India - Receipts were offered to tax only after a notice under section

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

27 of 56 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations Assessee did not offer the FTS receipts to tax under section 139 of the Act Receipts were offered to tax only after proceedings under section

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

section 271AAB.” The Ld A.R submitted that the provisions of sec.271(1)(c) are not applicable to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. However, the AO was not sure as to whether he has initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) or sec.271AAB, as is evident from the notice issued by him. He submitted that the penalty u/s 271AAB

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

u/s 271(1)(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 the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the ITAT was right in deleting

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s 271(1)(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 the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the ITAT was right in deleting

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

u/s 271(1)(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 the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the ITAT was right in deleting

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

u/s 271(1)(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 the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the ITAT was right in deleting

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

u/s 271(1)(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 the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the ITAT was right in deleting

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

u/s 271(1)(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 the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the ITAT was right in deleting

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

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 the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the ITAT was right in deleting

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

271(1), which provides as follows : "(b) the due date for filing the return of income for such previous year has expired but the assessee has not filed the return ;" 6. The aforesaid clause, we are inclined to think, is not applicable to the case of the assessee for the simple reason that it is not the case

SMT. B. BHAGYALAKSHMI vs. D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3),

In the result, assessee’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarsmt. Bhagyalakshmi, W/O B Shreeramulu, Vidyagiri, Sb Colony, Club Road, Near Kumaraswamy Temple, Bellary. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore. . Respondent Pan - Ajnpb 7530N. Appellant By : Shri Lakshmi Narayan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri C.H Sundar Rao, Cit Date Of Hearing : 23-3-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-3-2018 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Bangalore Dated 30/10/2013; Upholding The Orders Of The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore Dated 28/6/2010 Levying Penalty Of Rs.18,00,000/- U/S Ita No.162/B/14 2

27 1(1) (c). 7. The learned CJT(A) ought to have appreciated that explanation 5A u/s 271(1)(c) is not applicable to the assessee as it is applicable only to a person in whose case search was initiated u/s 132A of the act and therefore, there is neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, RAICHUR vs. M/S THE RAICHUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD , RAICHUR

In the result, the assessee's Cross Objections for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

27(1)(c).” Notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dt.16.3.2015 was also simultaneously issued. The assessee did not prefer any appeal against the above order of assessment for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.2 Subsequent to the issue of notice dt.16.3.2015 for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to which there

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

27 of 56\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada Limited & Others\nRebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations\nAssessee did not offer the FTS receipts\nto tax under section 139 of the Act\nReceipts were offered to tax only after\nproceedings under section 201 of the\nAct

RAGHURAM ENTERPRISES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. . ITA No.1835 to 1840/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 18 Coming to ITA/1836/Bang/2025 AY 2014-15, ITA/1837/Bang/2025 AY 2015-16, ITA/1838/Bang/2025 AY 2016-17. 15. At the outset, we note that the issues raised