ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year; and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

SAIKAT CHINMAY BHATTACHARYA,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment conducted for the past periods. The increase of the\nmonetary threshold from Rupees one lakh to Rupees fifty lakh is beneficial for the\nassesses. Mr Venkataraman has also conceded on behalf of the Revenue that all notices\nissued under the new regime by invoking the six year time limit prescribed under section\n149(1)(b) of the old regime

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 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 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

1)(c) of the Act, where the original\nreturn u/s 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were\noffered to tax in the return filed u/s 148 of the Act.\nName of the assessee\nITA No.\nAssessment\nyear\nIBM Canada Limited\n490/Bang/2024\n2013-14\nIBM Canada Limited\n491/Bang/2024\n2016-17\nIBM China Hongkong Limited\n500/Bang/2024\n2014

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

1) of\nthe Act has not been filed. However, secondment related receipts\nwere offered to tax only in the return filed u/s 148 of the Act.\nName of the assessee\nIBM Canada Limited\nITA No.\nAssessment\nyear\n543/Bang/2024 | 2017-18\nCategory ‘F’\nLevy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act where original return u/s 139(1

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 notices for past assessment years only if the time limit survives according to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, that is, six years from the end of the relevant assessment year; and (iv) all notices issued invoking the time limit under section 149(1)(b) of the old regime will have to be dropped if the income

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 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

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

7 of 53 already placed on record before the AO, and therefore the remand by the learned CIT(A) was unwarranted. On facts and in law, it was prayed that the software expenses be allowed as revenue expenditure as claimed by the assessee in the return of income. 17. Per contra, the ld. DR said that the lower authorities were

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

7 of 53 already placed on record before the AO, and therefore the remand by the learned CIT(A) was unwarranted. On facts and in law, it was prayed that the software expenses be allowed as revenue expenditure as claimed by the assessee in the return of income. 17. Per contra, the ld. DR said that the lower authorities were

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

7 of 53 already placed on record before the AO, and therefore the remand by the learned CIT(A) was unwarranted. On facts and in law, it was prayed that the software expenses be allowed as revenue expenditure as claimed by the assessee in the return of income. 17. Per contra, the ld. DR said that the lower authorities were

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 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 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

Section 9(i)(vii) and Section 195(1) of the Act, which is reproduced below for the\nfacility of reference:\n9(i)(vii) income by way of fees for technical services13 payable by--\n(a) the Government ; or\n(b) a person who is a resident, except where the fees are payable in respect of\nservices utilised in a business