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 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the 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

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 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the 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

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 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the 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

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 148 of the Act was issued, initiating the 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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

8) of section 270A of the Act totaling Rs.84,58,184/-. The penalty under sub-section (7) of section 270A of the Act was levied for disallowance of employees contribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act treating as under reported under sub section (2) of Section 270A of the Act whereas disallowance of deduction of Health & education cess

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

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11)No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

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 Category C: 271(1)(c) case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related

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 Category C: 271(1)(c) case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related

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 Category C: 271(1)(c) case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related

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 Category C: 271(1)(c) case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings Category C: 271(1)(c) case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings Category C: 271(1)(c) case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related

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

reassessment proceedings Category C: 271(1)(c) case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related

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

reassessment proceedings Category C: 271(1)(c) case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related

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

reassessment proceedings Category C: 271(1)(c) case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related receipts were offered to tax only in the return filed under section 148 of the Act Category D: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has been filed however, secondment related

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

8) of the Act for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting is initiated separately”. 3.1 The AO thereafter issued notice dated 28.2.2023 u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19 directing the Mr. Nateshan Sampath, Bangalore Page 3 of 12 assessee to show cause as to why an order imposing penalty u/s 270A

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

reassessment orders\nunder section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/assessment\norder under section 143(3) of the Act were issued along with show-\ncause notices for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act\nfor the matters pertaining to AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17 and under\nsection 270A

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

reassessment orders\nunder section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/assessment\norder under section 143(3) of the Act were issued along with show-\ncause notices for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act\nfor the matters pertaining to AY 2012-13 to AY 2016-17 and under\nsection 270A

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