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

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 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

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

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

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 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) case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has\nbeen filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return\nfiled under section 148 of the Act\nCompagnie IBM\n2013-\n271(1)(c)\n545/Bang/2024\nFiled but\nIn ROI filed\nFrance\n14\nnot offered\nu/s 148\nCompagnie IBM\n2015-\n271

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

u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of\ndifferent orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years.\n2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation,\nheadquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the\nglobe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under\nsection 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

8 of 56\nEntity\nAY\nSection\nITA No.\nITR\nOffered to\ntax\nIBM Israel Limited\n2014-\n271(1)(c)\n495/Bang/2024\nNot filed\nIn ROI filed\n15\nu/s 148\nIBM Israel Limited\n2016-\n271(1)(c)\n496/Bang/2024\nNot filed\nIn ROI filed\n17\nu/s 148\nCategory B: 271(1)(c) case where original return under section

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 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of\ndifferent orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years.\n2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation,\nheadquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the\nglobe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under\nsection 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of\ndifferent orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years.\n2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation,\nheadquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the\nglobe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under\nsection 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of\ndifferent orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years.\n2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation,\nheadquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the\nglobe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under\nsection 148/ section 143(2) of the Income