DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the underlying merits of the case, concerning ALP adjustments and income enhancement, had already been set aside to the TPO for fresh adjudication by an earlier Tribunal order. Since the very basis for imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) no longer existed, the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty was deemed justified.
What were the facts?
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s deletion of a penalty of Rs.33,47,40,340/- imposed on Bombardier Transportation India P. Ltd. under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for AY 2011-12. The penalty was originally based on adjustments related to Arms Length Price (ALP) and income enhancement.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) when the underlying issues on merits for which the penalty was imposed had been set aside by the Tribunal 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 BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM : The Revenue has come in appeal, challenging the order dated 24.09.2020 u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. CIT(A)), pertaining to AY 2011-12.
Bombardier Transportation India P. Ltd. 2
The Revenue has challenged the deletion of penalty of Rs.33,47,40,340/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income.
At the time of hearing, it transpired that the Tribunal by its order dated 09.08.2019 in for the relevant assessment year has already set aside the issues on merits to TPO for fresh adjudication/determination.
Ld. DR was unable to impress that any appeal against the same has been preferred by the Revenue. Thus, where the basis of imposition of penalty i.e. adjustments in the ALP and the enhancement of the income, no longer survives that the Ld.CIT(A) was justified to delete the penalty. There is no substance in the grounds raised. The appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
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 →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026