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

u/s Receipts were not offered under section 139) and thereby contending that the 139 of the Act basis juridical precedents/ Assessee had not disclosed all the facts IBM Corp’s order for AY 2011-12. - material to the computation of its total AO cannot contend that the Assessee had income. Reference drawn to Delhi not disclosed all material facts, especially

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

u/s Receipts were not offered under section 139) and thereby contending that the 139 of the Act basis juridical precedents/ Assessee had not disclosed all the facts IBM Corp’s order for AY 2011-12. - material to the computation of its total AO cannot contend that the Assessee had income. Reference drawn to Delhi not disclosed all material facts, especially

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

u/s Receipts were not offered under section 139) and thereby contending that the 139 of the Act basis juridical precedents/ Assessee had not disclosed all the facts IBM Corp’s order for AY 2011-12. - material to the computation of its total AO cannot contend that the Assessee had income. Reference drawn to Delhi not disclosed all material facts, especially

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)\nof the Act in respect of the income being\nsurrendered. The only argument made by\nthe Assessee was that it voluntarily\noffered receipts to tax and therefore,\npenalty cannot be levied.\nIn the case of IBM, the matter in respect\nof taxability of secondment expenses\nwhich is a debatable issue if not\nconsidered in favor

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)\nof the Act in respect of the income being\nsurrendered. The only argument made by\nthe Assessee was that it voluntarily\noffered receipts to tax and therefore,\npenalty cannot be levied.\nIn the case of IBM, the matter in respect\nof taxability of secondment expenses\nwhich is a debatable issue if not\nconsidered in favor

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\n139) and thereby contending that the\nAssessee had not disclosed all the facts\nmaterial to the computation of its total\nincome. Reference drawn to Delhi\nTribunal's ruling in the case of Ajay\nJain vs ITO [2013] 32 taxmann.com\n270 (Delhi ITAT)\n(Page 11/12 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nThe AO and CIT(A) have erred

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)\nof the Act in respect of the income being\nsurrendered. The only argument made by\nthe Assessee was that it voluntarily\noffered receipts to tax and therefore,\npenalty cannot be levied.\nIn the case of IBM, the matter in respect\nof taxability of secondment expenses\nwhich is a debatable issue if not\nconsidered in favor

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)\nof the Act in respect of the income being\nsurrendered. The only argument made by\nthe Assessee was that it voluntarily\noffered receipts to tax and therefore,\npenalty cannot be levied.\nIn the case of IBM, the matter in respect\nof taxability of secondment expenses\nwhich is a debatable issue if not\nconsidered in favor

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)\nof the Act in respect of the income being\nsurrendered. The only argument made by\nthe Assessee was that it voluntarily\noffered receipts to tax and therefore,\npenalty cannot be levied.\nIn the case of IBM, the matter in respect\nof taxability of secondment expenses\nwhich is a debatable issue if not\nconsidered in favor

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

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)\nof the Act in respect of the income being\nsurrendered. The only argument made by\nthe Assessee was that it voluntarily\noffered receipts to tax and therefore,\npenalty cannot be levied.\nIn the case of IBM, the matter in respect\nof taxability of secondment expenses\nwhich is a debatable issue if not\nconsidered in favor

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

u/s\n139) and thereby contending that the\nAssessee had not disclosed all the facts\nmaterial to the computation of its total\nincome. Reference drawn to Delhi\nTribunal's ruling in the case of Ajay\nJain vs ITO [2013] 32 taxmann.com\n270 (Delhi ITAT)\n(Page 11/12 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nRebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations

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)\nof the Act in respect of the income being\nsurrendered. The only argument made by\nthe Assessee was that it voluntarily\noffered receipts to tax and therefore,\npenalty cannot be levied.\nIn the case of IBM, the matter in respect\nof taxability of secondment expenses\nwhich is a debatable issue if not\nconsidered in favor

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

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 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

u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\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

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)\nof the Act in respect of the income being\nsurrendered. The only argument made by\nthe Assessee was that it voluntarily\noffered receipts to tax and therefore,\npenalty cannot be levied.\n\nIn the case of IBM, the matter in respect\nof taxability of secondment expenses\nwhich is a debatable issue if not\nconsidered in favor

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)\nof the Act in respect of the income being\nsurrendered. The only argument made by\nthe Assessee was that it voluntarily\noffered receipts to tax and therefore,\npenalty cannot be levied.\nThe CIT(A) has contended that mere\nacceptance of tax liability will not\npreclude the levy of the penalty on the\nassessee.\nThe

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)\nof the Act in respect of the income being\nsurrendered. The only argument made by\nthe Assessee was that it voluntarily\noffered receipts to tax and therefore,\npenalty cannot be levied.\nThe CIT(A) has contended that mere\nacceptance of tax liability will not\npreclude the levy of the penalty on the\nassessee.\nThe