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

B V 270A 18 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2017- 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 270A 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 section

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

B V 270A 18 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2017- 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 270A 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 section

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

DAVANAM JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

b) Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction. c) Failure to comply with the principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the impugned assessment order wherein the Ld. Assessing Officer (LAO) erred in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 in the absence of valid information suggesting escapement of income and without independent application of mind

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

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

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

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