EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

1) of the Act or undertaken any exercise to determine a different “actual cost” of the assets. There is also no finding that the assessee inflated the cost of acquisition or claimed depreciation in violation of section 43 of the Act. In fact, the learned CIT(A) himself has recorded that section 43 is not attracted in the present case

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

1) of the Act or undertaken any exercise to determine a different “actual cost” of the assets. There is also no finding that the assessee inflated the cost of acquisition or claimed depreciation in violation of section 43 of the Act. In fact, the learned CIT(A) himself has recorded that section 43 is not attracted in the present case

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

1) of the Act or undertaken any exercise to determine a different\n\"actual cost\" of the assets. There is also no finding that the assessee\ninflated the cost of acquisition or claimed depreciation in violation of\nsection 43 of the Act. In fact, the learned CIT(A) himself has recorded\nthat section 43 is not attracted in the present

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

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. e) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were

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. e) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were

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. e) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were

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. e) Reason for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act (i.e, whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars) was not discernible from the penalty orders. 4.4.3 With respect to penalty levied under section 270A (AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20) of the Act, the following specific submissions / contentions were

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

reassessment\nproceedings/\nduring 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)\nAirlines Ltd. VS Commissioner of\nIncome Tax [2022] 144 taxmann.com\n221 (SC) page 112-141 of case law\ncompilation wherein the SC (at page 117)\nhas dealt with

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

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

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

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)\nIn addition to the above, legal\nsubmissions, it is submitted that IBM\nIndia has reported such receipts in 3CEB\nExplanation 3 refers to the term\n'reasonable cause'. Reliance

RAGHAVAN NAMBATH MENON,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD INTL. TAXATION 1(2), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment proceedings on 17/12/2024 by adding alleged escaped income of Rs.10,12,160/- only. On going through the Annexure to the SCN issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 26/03/2022, we take note of the fact that the prime allegation of the AO was that the assessee had made certain investments in time deposits, cash deposits in Saving Bank

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

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)\nIn addition to the above, legal\nsubmissions, it is submitted that IBM\nIndia has reported such receipts in 3CEB\nExplanation 3 refers to the term\n'reasonable cause'. Reliance

IBM DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,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

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)\nIn addition to the above, legal\nsubmissions, it is submitted that IBM\nIndia has reported such receipts in 3CEB\nExplanation 3 refers to the term\n'reasonable cause'. Reliance

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

reassessment\n221 (SC) wherein the SC has dealt with\nproceedings/ during the course of\nthe aspect of ‘reasonable cause". IBM\nreassessment proceedings.\nforeign entities had reasonable cause to\nReference to Explanation 3 to section\nnot offer the receipts to tax in the return\n271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld\nunder section 139 of the Act basis:\n(Page

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

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)\nIn addition to the above, legal\nsubmissions, it is submitted that IBM\nIndia has reported such receipts in 3CEB\nExplanation 3 refers to the term\n'reasonable cause'. Reliance

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

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)\nIn addition to the above, legal\nsubmissions, it is submitted that IBM\nIndia has reported such receipts in 3CEB\nExplanation 3 refers to the term\n'reasonable cause'. Reliance