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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

B, the IBM\nforeign entities contested the validity of the penalty orders by\nhighlighting that the receipts were duly offered to tax in the\nrevised ROI (even before receipt of reasons for reopening the\nassessment) or voluntarily during the course of the\nreassessment proceedings.\ne) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271

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

B, the IBM\nforeign entities contested the validity of the penalty orders by\nhighlighting that the receipts were duly offered to tax in the\nrevised ROI (even before receipt of reasons for reopening the\nassessment) or voluntarily during the course of the\nreassessment proceedings.\ne) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271

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

penalty u/s 270A of the Act where return u/s 139(1) of\nthe Act has been filed. However, secondment related receipts were\noffered to tax only in the return filed u/s 148 of the Act.\nName of the assessee\nITA No.\nAssessment\nyear\nIBM Corporation\n544/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nIBM Netherland B V\n503/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nIBM United Kingdom Limited\n498/Bang/2024

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

B, the IBM\nforeign entities contested the validity of the penalty orders by\nhighlighting that the receipts were duly offered to tax in the\nrevised ROI (even before receipt of reasons for reopening the\nassessment) or voluntarily during the course of the\nreassessment proceedings.\ne) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e,\nwhether

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

B V 270A 18 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2017- 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 270A Limited 18 not offered u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

penalty u/s 270A of the Act where return u/s 139(1) of\nthe Act has been filed. However, secondment related receipts were\noffered to tax only in the return filed u/s 148 of the Act.\nName of the assessee\nITA No.\nAssessment\nyear\nIBM Corporation\n544/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nIBM Netherland B V\n503/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nIBM United Kingdom Limited\n498/Bang/2024

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

B, the IBM\nforeign entities contested the validity of the penalty orders by\nhighlighting that the receipts were duly offered to tax in the\nrevised ROI (even before receipt of reasons for reopening the\nassessment) or voluntarily during the course of the\nreassessment proceedings.\ne) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271

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

B, the IBM\nforeign entities contested the validity of the penalty orders by\nhighlighting that the receipts were duly offered to tax in the\nrevised ROI (even before receipt of reasons for reopening the\nassessment) or voluntarily during the course of the\nreassessment proceedings.\ne) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271

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

u/s 148 of the Act.\nName of the assessee\nITA No.\nAssessment\nyear\nIBM Corporation\n544/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nIBM Netherland B V\n503/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nIBM United Kingdom Limited\n498/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nCategory ‘E’\nLevy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act where return u/s 139(1) of\nthe Act has not been filed. However, secondment related receipts\nwere offered

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

B, the IBM\nforeign entities contested the validity of the penalty orders by\nhighlighting that the receipts were duly offered to tax in the\nrevised ROI (even before receipt of reasons for reopening the\nassessment) or voluntarily during the course of the\nreassessment proceedings.\ne) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271

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

B V 270A 18 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2017- 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 270A Limited 18 not offered u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section

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

B, the IBM\nforeign entities contested the validity of the penalty orders by\nhighlighting that the receipts were duly offered to tax in the\nrevised ROI (even before receipt of reasons for reopening the\nassessment) or voluntarily during the course of the\nreassessment proceedings.\ne) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271

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

section\n195(2) and section 197 of the Act are\nin the nature of safeguard sections to\nmake sure that taxes are rightfully\ndeducted on payments.\nRebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations\nProvisions of section 195(2)/ 197 of the\nAct are not mandatory and therefore the\nAO cannot be expected to seek recourse\nto the same.\nTherefore

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

B, the IBM\nforeign entities contested the validity of the penalty orders by\nhighlighting that the receipts were duly offered to tax in the\nrevised ROI (even before receipt of reasons for reopening the\nassessment) or voluntarily during the course of the\nreassessment proceedings.\ne) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271

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

B V 270A 18 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2017- 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 270A Limited 18 not offered u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed 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

B V 270A 18 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2017- 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 270A Limited 18 not offered u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section

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

B, the IBM\nforeign entities contested the validity of the penalty orders by\nhighlighting that the receipts were duly offered to tax in the\nrevised ROI (even before receipt of reasons for reopening the\nassessment) or voluntarily during the course of the\nreassessment proceedings.\ne) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271

IBM OSTERREICH INTIONATIONALE BUROMASCHINEN GESELLSCHAFT MBH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

B, the IBM\nforeign entities contested the validity of the penalty orders by\nhighlighting that the receipts were duly offered to tax in the\nrevised ROI (even before receipt of reasons for reopening the\nassessment) or voluntarily during the course of the\nreassessment proceedings.\ne) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271