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

273B of the Act. - The reference to the above case by the Assessee was only in the context of the legal principle emanating from the same which could also be used in the context of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - However, the CIT(A) has incorrectly opined that the reference to the subject ruling is misplaced merely because

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

273B of the Act. - The reference to the above case by the Assessee was only in the context of the legal principle emanating from the same which could also be used in the context of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - However, the CIT(A) has incorrectly opined that the reference to the subject ruling is misplaced merely because

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

273B of the Act. - The reference to the above case by the Assessee was only in the context of the legal principle emanating from the same which could also be used in the context of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - However, the CIT(A) has incorrectly opined that the reference to the subject ruling is misplaced merely because

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

273B of the Act. - The reference to the above case by the Assessee was only in the context of the legal principle emanating from the same which could also be used in the context of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - However, the CIT(A) has incorrectly opined that the reference to the subject ruling is misplaced merely because

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

273B of the Act.\nThe reference to the above case by the\nAssessee was only in the context of the\nlegal principle emanating from the same\nwhich could also be used in the context of\nsection 271(1)(c) of the Act.\nHowever, the CIT(A) has incorrectly\nopined that the reference to the subject\nruling is misplaced merely because

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

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

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 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

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 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

u/s\n139) and thereby contending that the\nAssessee had not disclosed all the facts\nMAK Data (supra) ruling is in the context\nof a case where income was voluntarily\noffered pursuant to a survey proceeding\nunder section 133A of the Act. No\nbonafide explanations were provided\nunder Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c)\nof the Act in respect

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

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 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

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

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