M/S. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the quantum appeal issues to the CIT(A)/TPO for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty issue was also restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after the quantum additions are adjudicated.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal challenges the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A) and relates to issues of Arms Length Price and royalty additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum additions have been set aside for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH,
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-15, New Delhi dated 16.02.2015 pertaining to A.Y 2007-08.
The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the first appellate authority erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 2.27 crores u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'].
At the very outset, the ld. AR stated that in the quantum appeal, the Tribunal set aside the impugned issues to the file of the CIT(A) /TPO for fresh adjudication.
The ld. DR fairly conceded to this.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. Penalty has been levied on account of the Arms Length Price and addition on account of royalty. We find that the Tribunal in & 1647/DEL/2012 has restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A)/TPO for fresh adjudication as per the directions given by the Tribunal. Since the quantum additions have been restored to the file of the lower authorities, we deem it fit to restore the penalty issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issue of levy of penalty afresh after the adjudication of quantum additions and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 19.07.2018.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026