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

section 271(1)(c) Data P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38 of the Act in respect of the income being taxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the surrendered. The only argument made by above contention the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)’s order) penalty cannot be levied

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

section 271(1)(c) Data P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38 of the Act in respect of the income being taxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the surrendered. The only argument made by above contention the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)’s order) penalty cannot be levied

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

section 271(1)(c) Data P. Ltd. vs CIT-II [2013] 38 of the Act in respect of the income being taxmann.com 448 (SC) to support the surrendered. The only argument made by above contention the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)’s order) penalty cannot be levied

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the income being surrendered. The only argument made by the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, penalty cannot be levied. Page 28 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) - The CIT(A) has contended that the explanations offered by IBM are not bonafide, since

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

28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order 424 164 144 151 consideration exceeds Rs. One crore and accordingly the assessee was liable to get his books of accounts audited u/s. 44AB of the Act & required to furnish/upload

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

28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order 424 164 144 151 consideration exceeds Rs. One crore and accordingly the assessee was liable to get his books of accounts audited u/s. 44AB of the Act & required to furnish/upload

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

28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order 424 164 144 151 consideration exceeds Rs. One crore and accordingly the assessee was liable to get his books of accounts audited u/s. 44AB of the Act & required to furnish/upload

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

28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 Actual delay in days 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order 424 164 144 151 consideration exceeds Rs. One crore and accordingly the assessee was liable to get his books of accounts audited u/s. 44AB of the Act & required to furnish/upload

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the income being surrendered. The only argument made by the Assessee was that it voluntarily offered receipts to tax and therefore, penalty cannot be levied. Page 28 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

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

28-12-2016 30-03-2017 31-03-2018 15-03-2019 14-02-2020 424 164 144 135 106 Delay as per 271B Order 424 164 144 151 106 ITA Nos.1504 to 1508/Bang/2025 Sri Gopal Krishna Karodi Sabbana, Sullia Page 11 of 16 Thus, as can be seen from the above table that the total turnover of the assessee

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

271, the assessing authority has clearly indicated that the proceedings under Section 271AAB being initiated and the reply of the show cause notice in writing on or before the date so as indicated will be considered before any such order is made under Section 271AAB.” The full contents of the notice are not available. A perusal of the above said

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. SANTOSH SHIVAJI LAD, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

28, 2023. Thus, the reasonable opportunity of being heard, as mandated under the law was not provided, rendering the penalty order invalid. 9.1 Furthermore, the assessee submitted that any addition or disallowance made in the assessment order does not, per se, empower the AO to levy a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee contended that

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of trading in rice and rice products, wheat and wheat products. The assessee filed its ROI u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring an income of Rs. 28,35,100/- only. A search action u/s

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of trading in rice and rice products, wheat and wheat products. The assessee filed its ROI u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring an income of Rs. 28,35,100/- only. A search action u/s

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of trading in rice and rice products, wheat and wheat products. The assessee filed its ROI u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring an income of Rs. 28,35,100/- only. A search action u/s

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of trading in rice and rice products, wheat and wheat products. The assessee filed its ROI u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring an income of Rs. 28,35,100/- only. A search action u/s

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of trading in rice and rice products, wheat and wheat products. The assessee filed its ROI u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring an income of Rs. 28,35,100/- only. A search action u/s