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

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 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 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

K.RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

SHRI. AJITH R,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

SHRI. AJITH R,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

K RAMASWAMY ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

R.AJITH ,MYSORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

SHRI. K. RAMASWAMY,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE--2(1),, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodia

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court also considered the effect of provisions of section 271B of the Act, which provide that a mere observation in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings are initiated separately would be sufficient recording of satisfaction. The Hon’ble High Court dealt with this argument as follows:- “10. Section

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

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

sections in all the years. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the penalties so levied. 4. We shall now take up the appeals pertaining to AY 2008-09 to 2012-13, wherein penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied. It is pertinent to note that the assessing officer in the assessment order as well as in ITA Nos.1172

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 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

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 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