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

34 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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

34 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

34 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

u/s 139) and thereby contending that the Assessee had not disclosed all the facts material to the computation of its total income. Reference drawn to Delhi Tribunal's ruling in the case of Ajay Jain vs ITO [2013] 32 taxmann.com 270 (Delhi ITAT) (Page 11/12 of the CIT(A)'s order) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations - not file

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

34,47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 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

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

34,47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 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

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

34,47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 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

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

34,47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded 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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

34,47,438 6,53,94,261 Due dates of Tax Audit 31-10-2015 17-10-2016 07-11-2017 31-10-2018 31-10-2019 Audit Uploaded Actual delay in days 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

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

M/S STUMP SCHUELE AND SOMAPPA SPRINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Stumpp Schuele & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Somappa Springs Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Ltu, No.139/2, Hosur Road, Circle - 1, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 095. Pan : Aalcs 7347 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sowmya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boazthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-10, Bangalore, Dated 01.02.2018 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Upholding The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Relevant For Disposal Of This Appeal Are As Under: Page 2 Of 9 2.1 The Assessee, A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Supply Of Stabilizer Bars & All Varieties Of Springs, Automobile Components, Spare Parts, Accessories, Etc., Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 Declaring Loss Of (-) Rs.5,34,42,031/- Under Normal Provisions & ‘Book Profits’ Of Rs.2,88,52,729/- Under Section 115Jb Of The Act. The Case Was Taken Up For Assessment For This Assessment Year & The Assessment Was Concluded Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 13.03.2015, Wherein The Assessee’S Loss Was Determined At Rs.4,55,68,066/- In View Of The Following Additions / Deductions:- (I) Disallowance Of Deduction Under Section 35(2Ab) – Rs.14,34,982/- (Ii) Disallowance Of Leave Encashment – Rs.64,38,983/-.

34,982/- (ii) Disallowance of Leave Encashment – Rs.64,38,983/-. 2.2 Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated simultaneously vide notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date in respect of the aforesaid additions / disallowances. After considering the assessee’s replies in the matter, the AO proceeded to levy

JICE ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

271 D of the I.T. Act 1961. Accordingly, the Addl.CIT invoked the provisions of section 271D and levied penalty at Rs.15,64,50,000 for accepting loan in cash in violation of provisions of section 269SS as per section 271D of the Act. 19. The main contention of the ld. AR is that the transaction is genuine

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI CGANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 271E is cash repayments reflected by the assessee himself and it is the failure of the assessee to explain the same satisfactorily which has resulted the Range Head levying the pelanty. The fact of cash advance received, which is in fact admitted by the assessee himself, and application of section 269T 6. For these and such other grounds that