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

8 of 56 Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax IBM Israel Limited 2014- 271(1)(c) 495/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 15 u/s 148 IBM Israel Limited 2016- 271(1)(c) 496/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 17 u/s 148 Category B: 271(1)(c) case where original return under section

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

8 of 56 Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax IBM Israel Limited 2014- 271(1)(c) 495/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 15 u/s 148 IBM Israel Limited 2016- 271(1)(c) 496/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 17 u/s 148 Category B: 271(1)(c) case where original return under section

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

8 of 56 Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax IBM Israel Limited 2014- 271(1)(c) 495/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 15 u/s 148 IBM Israel Limited 2016- 271(1)(c) 496/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 17 u/s 148 Category B: 271(1)(c) case where original return under section

SHRISHAILAMALLIKARJUN TRADERS,NARGUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GADAG

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

271-G' by Finance Act, 2015 (No. 20 of 2015), dated 14.5.2015.][, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272-A, sub-section (1) of section 272-AA or ] [Inserted by Act 46 of 1986, Section 26 (w.e.f. 10.9.1986).][section 272-B or] [ Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 106 (w.e.f

SIMPLEX TMC PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is pari materia with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible

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

8. Aggrieved by the order of AO passed u/s 271B of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji. 9. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessee did not comply any of the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the ld. CIT(A) inferred that

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

8. Aggrieved by the order of AO passed u/s 271B of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji. 9. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessee did not comply any of the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the ld. CIT(A) inferred that

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

8. Aggrieved by the order of AO passed u/s 271B of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji. 9. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessee did not comply any of the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the ld. CIT(A) inferred that

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

8. Aggrieved by the order of AO passed u/s 271B of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-2, Panaji. 9. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessee did not comply any of the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the ld. CIT(A) inferred that

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

8 of 56 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax IBM Israel Limited 2014- 15 271(1)(c) 495/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed u/s 148 IBM Israel Limited 2016- 17 271(1)(c) 496/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed u/s

BHADRAVATHI RAMALINGASETTY MANJUNATH SETTY,BHADRAVATHI vs. ITO WARD-1 TPS , SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

u/s 143(3) of the Act on 16.6.2020. While passing the penalty order, the AO reproduced the medical certificate submitted by the assessee in which we found that the doctor had advised him for the bed rest for 5 months due to his cardiac condition. We also take note of the fact that the ld. AO rejected the said medical

MR. SHIVAKUMAR MAHADEVAIAH ,MYSORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), MYSORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

8 Mr. Shivakumar Mahadevaiah authority records satisfaction, then the penalty proceedings have to be initiated by the appellate authority and not the Assessing Authority. p) Notice under Section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VERDE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 271 r.w.s 274, without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated against concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is invalid and thereby setting aside the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c)? 3. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that in the present case, the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars in respect

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRIAD RESORTS AND HOTELS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

section 271 r.w.s 274, without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated against concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is invalid and thereby setting aside the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c)? 3. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that in the present case, the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars in respect

SRI. CHINNAYELLAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR, ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

u/s 44AB of the Act, the penalty levied may be sustained. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Before proceeding further, we may take note of the provisions of section 44AB, 271B and 273B of the Act for the purpose of this case, which reads as follows: 44AB. Audit of accounts of certain

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

8 of 56 IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Entity AY Section ITA No. ITR Offered to tax IBM Israel Limited 2014- 271(1)(c) 495/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 15 u/s 148 IBM Israel Limited 2016- 271(1)(c) 496/Bang/2024 Not filed In ROI filed 17 u/s

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

8. Aggrieved by the order of AO passed u/s 271B of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the 1d. CIT(A)-2, Panaji. 9. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the assessee did not comply any of the notices issued by the 1d. CIT(A) and accordingly the ld. CIT(A) inferred that

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. 274 of the Act should specifically state as to whether penalty is being proposed to be imposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble High court has further laid down that certain printed form where all the grounds given in section 271 are given would not satisfy the requirement