HARSHAVARDHAN ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all 13 appeals of the assessee are allowed

147 in which it was held that since no format of books of accounts were prescribed under the Rules for Civil Contracts, Penalty u/s 271A is not justified. He submitted that when no penalty u/s 271A is leviable, Penalty u/s 271B also cannot be levied for non-audit as prescribed u/s 44AB. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VERDE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 and 148 of IT Act, it was held by Hon’ble High Court in that case that although the notice u/s. 148 was issued in the name of erstwhile company despite company ceasing to exist as it had been converted into LLP, it was held by Hon’ble High Court that this error would not invalidate

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRIAD RESORTS AND HOTELS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 and 148 of IT Act, it was held by Hon’ble High Court in that case that although the notice u/s. 148 was issued in the name of erstwhile company despite company ceasing to exist as it had been converted into LLP, it was held by Hon’ble High Court that this error would not invalidate

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

147 of the Act, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. I, thus, in terms of above discussion, quash the assessment framed by ITO Ward-1, Chikamagaluru u/s 144 of the Act dated 24.12.2018. 7.5 Further, the ld. D.R. strongly placed reliance on the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of Abhishek Jain

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

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 28.2.2023 by making disallowance of Rs.91,47,331/- claimed deduction as cost of improvement. On going through the assessment order, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings on or before the completion of assessment proceedings on the ground of under reporting of income in consequence of mis reporting. Further, on going through the show

IBM AUSTRALIA 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

penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of\ndifferent orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years.\n2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation,\nheadquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the\nglobe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under\nsection 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of\ndifferent orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years.\n2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation,\nheadquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the\nglobe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under\nsection 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

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

u/s 37 of the\nAct was considered under reported is in consequence of\nmisreporting of income under section 270A(2) rws 270(9) of the Act.\n5.2 For the purpose of evaluating the correctness of rival\nsubmissions addressed we deem it apposite to extract section 270A\n& 270AA of the Act herein below:\n270A. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting

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

penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of\ndifferent orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years.\n2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation,\nheadquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the\nglobe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under\nsection 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

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

penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of\ndifferent orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years.\n2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation,\nheadquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the\nglobe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under\nsection 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

SRI. PANATI VIKRAMDEVA REDDY,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 4. Penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) were also initiated by show cause notice dated 28.03.2022. Another show cause notice dated 26.8.2022 was issued to upload submission as per mandate of Faceless Penalty Scheme and that penalty initiated u/s. 271(1)(b) being a technical penalty it cannot be kept in abeyance

SRI. PANATI VIKRAMDEVA REDDY,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 4. Penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) were also initiated by show cause notice dated 28.03.2022. Another show cause notice dated 26.8.2022 was issued to upload submission as per mandate of Faceless Penalty Scheme and that penalty initiated u/s. 271(1)(b) being a technical penalty it cannot be kept in abeyance

M/S ICKON PROJECTS ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the I.T.Act was completed on 27.12.2011 assessing the total income of Rs.1,05,26,412. 5. Thereafter notice u/s 274 of the I.T.Act was issued for imposition of penalty. The assessee filed objections vide letter dated 11.03.2014. However, the objections of the assessee was rejected and the Assessing Officer imposed minimum penalty of Rs.37

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

penalty u/s 270A of the Act by NFAC arising out of\ndifferent orders of NFAC for the respective above assessment years.\n2. Facts of the case are that IBM is a multinational corporation,\nheadquartered in the USA with multiple subsidiaries around the\nglobe, including India. IBM foreign entities received notices under\nsection 148/ section 143(2) of the Income

MS.DIVYA S RAO ,MYSORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment as well, and best judgment assessment was made under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act on 29/02/2016 assessing the escaped income under the head capital gains Page 7 of 13 ITA No.2384 to 2387/Bang/2018 at Rs.6,55,000/-. Ld.AO, subsequently initiated proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notice, and 271F

GOPAL ANIL KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

Penalty No. u/s amount initiated u/s 7 Disallowance 28 to 44D 90,50,000 270A(9)(c) u/s 37 of IT Act 8 Unexplained 68 21,08,825 271AAC of credits the Act 9 Unexplained 68 96,90,000 271AAC of credits the Act 10 Business income 28 to 44D 40,25,068 270A

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

penalty bonafide difficulty on part of the u/s 271C and the yardstick of Assessee and therefore qualifies to be a reasonable cause u/s 273B was applied ‘reasonable cause’ under section 273B of based on the facts of that case. the Act. - The reference to the above case by the (Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order) Assessee was only

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

penalty bonafide difficulty on part of the u/s 271C and the yardstick of Assessee and therefore qualifies to be a reasonable cause u/s 273B was applied ‘reasonable cause’ under section 273B of based on the facts of that case. the Act. - The reference to the above case by the (Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order) Assessee was only