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. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC) - The CIT(A) has concluded that the provisions of 270A(8) need not be invoked and that the case of the Assessee is covered under section 270A(2)(a) / 270A(2)(b

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

reassessment proceedings. - The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts of the case from Karnataka HC’s ruling in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC) - The CIT(A) has concluded that the provisions of 270A(8) need not be invoked and that the case of the Assessee is covered under section 270A(2)(a) / 270A(2)(b

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE vs. L JAVERCHAND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. No.1, 2Nd Floor & 3Rd Floor, Choksi Chamber Dcit 1Stagyari Lane Vs. Central Circle-1 Zaveri Bazar Mangaluru Mumbai 400 002

2)A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a)the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b)the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

b) of sub-section (2) of section 249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 286CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A. (4) The Assessing Officer shall, within

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

B V 2017- 18 270A 503/Bang/2024 Filed but not offered In ROI filed u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom Limited 2017- 18 270A 498/Bang/2024 Filed but not offered In ROI filed u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

2)A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a)the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b)the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished

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

B V 2017- 270A 503/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 18 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2017- 270A 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 18 not offered u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed

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

B V 2017- 270A 503/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 18 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2017- 270A 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 18 not offered u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed

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

B V 2017- 270A 503/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 18 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2017- 270A 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 18 not offered u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

B V 2017- 270A 503/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 18 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2017- 270A 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 18 not offered u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

B V 2017- 270A 503/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 18 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2017- 270A 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 18 not offered u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed

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

B V 2017- 270A 503/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 18 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2017- 270A 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 18 not offered u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed

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

B V 270A 503/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 18 not offered u/s 148 2017- IBM United Kingdom 270A 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed Limited 18 not offered u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under

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

B V 270A 503/Bang/2024 | Filed but In ROI filed 18 not offered u/s 148 2017- IBM United Kingdom 270A 498/Bang/2024 | Filed but In ROI filed Limited 18 not offered u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under

MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

2)A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a)the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b)the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished

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

B V\nC/o IBM India Private Limited\nBangalore 560 029\nPAN NO : AACCI2916A\nAPPELLANT\nDCIT (International Taxation)\nVs. Circle-1(2)\nBangalore\nRESPONDENT\nIT(IT)A No.498/Bang/2024\n Assessment Years: 2017-18\nIBM United Kingdom Limited\nC/o IBM India Private Limited\nBangalore 560 029\nPAN NO: AACCI2862H\nAPPELLANT\nDCIT (International Taxation)\nVs. Circle-1(2)\nBangalore\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.543/Bang/2024

IBM DEL PERU SAC,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

B V\nC/o IBM India Private Limited\nBangalore 560 029\nPAN NO : AACCI2916A\nAPPELLANT\nVs.\nDCIT (International Taxation)\nCircle-1(2)\nBangalore\nRESPONDENT\n\nIT(IT)A No.498/Bang/2024\n Assessment Years: 2017-18\n\nIBM United Kingdom Limited\nC/o IBM India Private Limited\nBangalore 560 029\nPAN NO: AACCI2862H\nAPPELLANT\nVs.\nDCIT (International Taxation)\nCircle-1(2)\nBangalore\nRESPONDENT

TAKRAR RANGANATHA RAO NAGASHRE ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19 Takrar Ranganatha Rao Nagashree Ito 20, Singapore Gardens Ward-3(2)(1) Vs. Bangalore 560 062 Bangalore Pan No.Aaipn8579M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sreehari Kutsa, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Dated 29.12.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

reassessment in the hands of the Appellant and consequently the notice is issued without due application of mind, making the notice bad at law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the approval issued u/s 151 to the Assessing Officer is bad at law for the reason