ITO WARD - 16(4), NEW DELHI vs. MAT BRAKES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 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 held that the appeal by the Revenue should be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. The reduced transfer pricing adjustment resulted in a penalty amount below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for appeals.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The original assessment involved a transfer pricing adjustment, which was later reduced by the Dispute Resolution Panel.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal by the Revenue is maintainable on grounds of low tax effect after a reduction in the transfer pricing adjustment and consequential penalty.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : I : DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 ITO, Vs MAT Brakes India Private Ltd., Ward-16(4), Suite No.311, New Delhi. Vardhman Diamond Plaza, DB Gupta Road, Paharganj, New Delhi. PAN AAGCM9838B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Deepak Kataria, AR Revenue by : Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 ORDER
PER M. BALAGANESH, AM:
This appeal in for AY 2013-14 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-44, New Delhi, in Appeal No.208/2018- 19/CIT(A)-44 dated 29.11.2019 [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 13.06.2017 by the ld. Income- tax Officer, Circle 16(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).
At the outset, we find that this appeal of the Revenue requires to be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. We find that this appeal is against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that the ld. AO, in the original assessment completed, made transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2,23,31,862/-. Pursuant to the directions issued by the ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), this transfer pricing adjustment was brought down to Rs.1,38,07,041/-. In fact, the revision order has already been passed by the ld. AO on 27.04.2018. While this is so, the ld. AO was not justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.2,23,31,862/-. In respect of the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.2,23,31,862/-, the ld. AO had levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the sum of Rs.72,45,571/-. Once the transfer pricing adjustment gets reduced to Rs.1,38,07,041/-, the corresponding penalty would work out to Rs.44,79,693/- which would eventually be less than the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT for preferring appeal before this Tribunal by the Revenue, vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August, 2019. Hence, we deem it fit to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue as not maintainable on the ground of low tax effect.
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 →- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026