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

reassessment proceedings. IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 31 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - Reference to Explanation 3 to section not file a return under section 139 of the 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld Act basis

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

reassessment proceedings. Reference to Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order) In addition to the above, legal submissions, it is submitted that IBM India has reported such receipts in 3CEB Explanation 3 refers to the term 'reasonable cause'. Reliance can be placed on decision

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

reassessment proceedings. IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 31 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - Reference to Explanation 3 to section not file a return under section 139 of the 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld Act basis

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

reassessment proceedings. IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 31 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - Reference to Explanation 3 to section not file a return under section 139 of the 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld Act basis

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings. - Reference to Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld (Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order) - The CIT(A) has contended that mere acceptance of tax liability will not preclude the levy of the penalty on the assessee. - The CIT(A) has relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court

COMPAGNIE IBM FRANCE,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

1) of the Act falling under Category C, D and F had also duly reported the said receipts in Form 3CEB, but did not offer the secondments receipts to tax on the basis of its bonafide belief that the same is not taxable. 3.2 The subject receipts are in the nature of actual costs initially incurred by the respective

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

1) of the Act falling under Category C, D and F had also duly reported the said receipts in Form 3CEB, but did not offer the secondments receipts to tax on the basis of its bonafide belief that the same is not taxable. 3.2 The subject receipts are in the nature of actual costs initially incurred by the respective

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1) of the Act falling under Category C, D and F had also duly reported the said receipts in Form 3CEB, but did not offer the secondments receipts to tax on the basis of its bonafide belief that the same is not taxable. 3.2 The subject receipts are in the nature of actual costs initially incurred by the respective

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

1) of the Act falling under Category C, D and F had also duly reported the said receipts in Form 3CEB, but did not offer the secondments receipts to tax on the basis of its bonafide belief that the same is not taxable. 3.2 The subject receipts are in the nature of actual costs initially incurred by the respective

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

1) of the Act falling under Category C, D and F had also duly reported the said receipts in Form 3CEB, but did not offer the secondments receipts to tax on the basis of its bonafide belief that the same is not taxable. 3.2 The subject receipts are in the nature of actual costs initially incurred by the respective

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

1) of the Act falling under Category C, D and F had also duly reported the said receipts in Form 3CEB, but did not offer the secondments receipts to tax on the basis of its bonafide belief that the same is not taxable. 3.2 The subject receipts are in the nature of actual costs initially incurred by the respective

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

1) of the Act falling under Category C, D and F had also duly reported the said receipts in Form 3CEB, but did not offer the secondments receipts to tax on the basis of its bonafide belief that the same is not taxable. 3.2 The subject receipts are in the nature of actual costs initially incurred by the respective

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

reassessment\nproceedings/ during the course of\nreassessment proceedings.\nReference to Explanation 3 to section\n271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld\n(Page 10/11 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nThe CIT(A) has contended that mere\nacceptance of tax liability will not\npreclude the levy of the penalty on the\nassessee.\nThe CIT(A) has relied

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

12 of 64 is vested with Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore. 17. The ld. AR further submitted it is admitted by the department that jurisdiction over the assessee was with Income tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Bangalore and vide order U/s. 127 of the Act, the jurisdiction changed to Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

12 of 64 is vested with Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore. 17. The ld. AR further submitted it is admitted by the department that jurisdiction over the assessee was with Income tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Bangalore and vide order U/s. 127 of the Act, the jurisdiction changed to Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBBALLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

12 of 14 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. q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH, HUBBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

12 of 14 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. q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement

SRI DEEPAK S HIREMATH ,HUBALI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

12 of 14 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. q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement