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 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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 197, in respect to deductibility of tax on similar receipts - The CIT(A) highlighted that section 195(2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - The CIT(A) has thereafter contended that the Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis

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

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under section

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

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under section

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.\nThe CIT(A) has distinguished the facts\nof the case from Karnataka HC's\nruling in Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory [2013] 35\nTaxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A

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

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under section

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.\nThe CIT(A) has distinguished the facts\nof the case from Karnataka HC's\nruling in Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory [2013] 35\nTaxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A

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

271C of the Act or u/s 270A of the Act, which can be\nactually classified as follows:\nCategory ‘A’:\nLevy of penalty u/s 271(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.\n\nName

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

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under section

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

section\n195(2) and section 197 of the Act are\nin the nature of safeguard sections to\nmake sure that taxes are rightfully\ndeducted on payments.\nRebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations\nProvisions of section 195(2)/ 197 of the\nAct are not mandatory and therefore the\nAO cannot be expected to seek recourse\nto the same.\nTherefore

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

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under section

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

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under section

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.\nThe CIT(A) has distinguished the facts\nof the case from Karnataka HC's\nruling in Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory [2013] 35\nTaxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC)\nThe CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A

IBM OSTERREICH INTIONATIONALE BUROMASCHINEN GESELLSCHAFT MBH,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.\n- The CIT(A) has distinguished the facts\nof the case from Karnataka HC's\nruling in Manjunatha Cotton &\nGinning Factory [2013] 35\nTaxmann.com 250 (Karnataka HC)\n- The CIT(A) has concluded that the\nprovisions of 270A(8) need not be\ninvoked and that the case of the\nAssessee is covered under section\n270A

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

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nRebuttal to the CIT(A)'s observations\n\n- MAK Data (supra) ruling is in the context\nof a case where income was voluntarily\noffered pursuant to a survey proceeding\nunder section 133A

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

u/s\n139) and thereby contending that the\nAssessee had not disclosed all the facts\nmaterial to the computation of its total\nincome. Reference drawn to Delhi\nTribunal's ruling in the case of Ajay\nJain vs ITO [2013] 32 taxmann.com\n270 (Delhi ITAT)\n(Page 11/12 of the CIT(A)'s order)\nThe CIT(A) has highlighted that

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

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under section

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

271C and the yardstick of\nreasonable cause u/s 273B was applied\nbased on the facts of that case.\n(Page 17-18 of the CIT(A) order)\nThe contention that the explanations of\nthe Assessee are not bonafide merely\nbecause receipts were offered in the 148\nreturn.\nThe Assessee had bonafide reasons to not\noffer receipts to tax under section