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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271

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

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271

IBM ISRAEL 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

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271

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

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271

IBM AUSTRALIA 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

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has 'concealed' particulars of income under section 271

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

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section 271

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

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section 271

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

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under 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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 4.2.1 The AO in the penalty order has confirmed that the Assessee has ‘concealed’ particulars of income under section 271

SRI P A USMAN ,SULLIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result, the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Ita Nos.888 & 889(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Years : 2014-15) Shri P.A.Usman, D No.2-106-2, Chennavara House, Peruvaje Post, Bellare, Sullia-574 212 Pan No. Aappu4406R Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. R.Premi, Jcit

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee. 12. In the result, the assessee appeal in ITA No.888(B)/2019 and ITA No.889/B?2019 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20-09-2019 (A.K.GARODIA) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) sACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: *am ITA Nos.888 & 889(B)/2019

M/S SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , RANEBENNURU

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

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

TDS, Davangere, who passed the said order was not competent to levy penalty because the provisions of Sec.271C(2) lays down that penalty can be imposed only by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, the date of initiation of penalty u/s.271C should be regarded as the date of passing of the order u/s.201(1) of the Act dated

M/S SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNUR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBBALI

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

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

TDS, Davangere, who passed the said order was not competent to levy penalty because the provisions of Sec.271C(2) lays down that penalty can be imposed only by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, the date of initiation of penalty u/s.271C should be regarded as the date of passing of the order u/s.201(1) of the Act dated

M/S SHA THANMAL SUKHARAJJI & CO,RANEBENNURU vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are allowed

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

TDS, Davangere, who passed the said order was not competent to levy penalty because the provisions of Sec.271C(2) lays down that penalty can be imposed only by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, the date of initiation of penalty u/s.271C should be regarded as the date of passing of the order u/s.201(1) of the Act dated

MARIS CEMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HULIYAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, TUMKUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member

TDS, the assessee has placed its reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. L.G.Choudhary (33 taxmann.com 156)(Guj.) We have gone through the said decision and we notice that the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271

M/S.RAICON ENGINEERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.316/Bang/2017 is allowed, while ITA

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

penalty on the assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is the case of the revenue that but for the survey u/s. 133A of the Act, the assessee would not have disallowed expenditure on which TDS

M/S.RAICON ENGINEERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.316/Bang/2017 is allowed, while ITA

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

penalty on the assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is the case of the revenue that but for the survey u/s. 133A of the Act, the assessee would not have disallowed expenditure on which TDS