BAUSCH AND LOMB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HARYANA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3598/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2026AY 2016-173 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities could not have levied the penalty as the assessee had previously succeeded in High Court decisions stating that AMP transactions are not covered under section 92B. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee was levied a penalty under section 271AA for alleged failure to report international transactions related to Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses with related parties. The assessee argued that these transactions are not covered under section 92B of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether AMP expenses with related parties constitute international transactions under Section 92B for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271AA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AA,Section 92B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Ms. Supriya Mehta, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12.05.2026Pronounced: 12.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3598/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bausch and Lomb India Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Circle -4(2), 4th Floor, Tower-B, Unitech New Delhi Business Park, South City- 1, Haryana, Gurgaon PAN: AABCB3877E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Supriya Mehta, Adv. Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 12.05.2026 Date of pronouncement 12.05.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s-44 order dated 29.03.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1075258494(1), dated 29.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 271AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.3598/Del/2025

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant herein is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings levying section 271AA penalty in issue of Rs.2,92,522/- on account of its alleged failure in reporting the international transactions in the nature of Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion “AMP” with related parties. 3. That being the case, a perusal of the assessee’s grounds herein sufficiently reveal that it has already succeeded in hon’ble jurisdictional high court decision (ITA 643/2014, 675/2014, 676/2014, 677/2014 and 950/2014) in assessment year 2006-07 to 2010-11 that such “AMP” transactions are not covered under section 92B of the Act. 4. We thus conclude in this admitted undisputed clinching factual backdrop that the learned department authorities could not have levied the impugned section 271AA penalty alleging non- reporting of the assessee’s “AMP” expenses as an international transaction under section 92B of the Act which is hereby deleted in very terms.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.3598/Del/2025

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th May, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20th May, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 271AA

All 182 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AA →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →