M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The ld. AO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. (supra). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide' intention

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were made before the CIT(A): a) Substantiating the ‘bonafide’ intention

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide

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

271(1)(c) of the Act (i. e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide