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 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

43 8\n(SC)\nThe CIT(A) has noted that the\nAssessee was cognizant about the\nnature of payments received by it but\nchose not to offer the same to tax.\n(Page 17 of the CIT(A) order)\nunder section 133A of the Act. No\nbonafide explanations were provided\nunder Explanation 1 of section 271

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

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

section\n195(2) and section 197 of the Act are\nin the nature of safeguard sections to\nmake sure that taxes are rightfully\ndeducted on payments.\nRebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations\nProvisions of section 195(2)/ 197 of the\nAct are not mandatory and therefore the\nAO cannot be expected to seek recourse\nto the same.\nTherefore

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

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

6) of\nthe Act which states that where an Assessee offers a 'bonafide'\nexplanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all\nmaterial facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such\ncase would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting\nof income;\nb) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities\nother than

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

43 8\n(SC)\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 of the income being\nsurrendered. The only argument made by\nthe

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 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

6) is\nrejected.\n\n- Further, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B

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

43 8\n(SC)\n\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 of the income being\nsurrendered. The only argument made

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

6) is\nrejected.\nFurther, the Assessee's reliance on the\ndecision of the SC in the case of\nSingapore Airlines Ltd. VS\nCommissioner of Income Tax [2022]\n144 taxmann.com 221 (SC) is held to\nbe misplaced since the said decision\nwas rendered in the context of penalty\nu/s 271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased

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

6) of\nthe Act which states that where an Assessee offers a 'bonafide'\nexplanation to the satisfaction of the AO and duly discloses all\nmaterial facts to substantiate the explanation offered, such\ncase would not be considered to be a case of under-reporting\nof income;\nb) Contesting the validity of the penalty orders (for all entities\nother than