INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the consolidated order of the ld. CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru, dated 10.02.2025 vide DIN : ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1073061567(1) for the AY 2015-16; vide DIN: ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1073061747(1) for the AY 2016-17 and vide DIN : ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1073061874(1) for the AY 2017-18 passed

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

e-assessment portal on 15.07.2019 by ITO- Ward- International Taxation-1(1), Bangalore calling for details. 7.2. The Ld.AR submitted that ITO-Ward-International Taxation never issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee, and therefore did not assume jurisdiction to pass the assessment 13 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das order. Referring

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

e-assessment portal on 15.07.2019 by ITO- Ward- International Taxation-1(1), Bangalore calling for details. 7.2. The Ld.AR submitted that ITO-Ward-International Taxation never issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee, and therefore did not assume jurisdiction to pass the assessment 13 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das order. Referring

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

E) Vs. Shree Shyam Mandir Committee, reported in Shri Hingulambika Education Society, Gulbarga Page 5 of 42 (2018) 400 ITR 466 (Raj.), Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held that as per Sec.l2A(2) provisos the sec. 11 exemption is applicable for the Assessees Asst years 2003-04 to 2008- 09, as these assessments are pending in dispute

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

e) Without further prejudice, the appellant denies himself to be assessed to the interest over and above the interest of Rs. 44,250/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The appellant denies himself to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and section 234C in view of the fact there is no additional liability to additional

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 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 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

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 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

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

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

e)(i).\n15.15.\nWithout prejudice to the above, the Learned AO\nfailed to appreciate that circumstances envisaged under\nRule 6DD are only illustrative and not exhaustive and the\ncase of Appellant does not warrant invocation of section\n40A(3) as the impugned payments are genuine and are\nmade out of business exigency.\n15. 16. Without prejudice to the Learned

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

e)(i).\n15.15.\nWithout prejudice to the above, the Learned AO\nfailed to appreciate that circumstances envisaged under\nRule 6DD are only illustrative and not exhaustive and the\ncase of Appellant does not warrant invocation of section\n40A(3) as the impugned payments are genuine and are\nmade out of business exigency.\n15.16. Without prejudice to the Learned AO erred

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

e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide' intention of the Assessee for not\noffering

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

e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide' intention of the Assessee for not\noffering

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

e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide' intention of the Assessee for not\noffering

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

e,\nwhether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders.\n4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18\nto AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions /\ncontentions were made before the CIT(A):\na) Substantiating the ‘bonafide' intention of the Assessee for not\noffering

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

E: 270A case where original return under section\n139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to\ntax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act\nObservation of the CIT(A)\nThe CIT(A) has rejected the submission of\nIBM in respect of discrepancies under\nwhich limb penalty is levied, basis the\nbelow

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

E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not\nbeen filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the\nAct\nIBM Canada Limited\n2017-\n270A\n543/Bang/2024\nNot filed\nIn ROI filed\nu/s 148\n18\nCategory F: 270A case where original return under section