How many judgments cite CIT v. M/s. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd.?

33 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. M/s. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. (360 ITR 532), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. M/s. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 92D, Section 143(3), Section 271AA, Section 92CA, Section 10D, Section 153A.

CIT v. M/s. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd.

360 ITR 532High Court2013#3626 most cited

What is CIT v. M/s. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Penalty under Section 271G cannot be imposed for mere technical lapses or non-compliance with transfer pricing documentation requirements if substantial compliance is demonstrated and the Assessing Officer (AO) or Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) did not issue a specific requisition for particulars under Section 92D(3).

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Leroy Somer & Controls · 360 ITR 532 · section 271G · section 92D(3) · penalty · transfer pricing documentation · substantial compliance · specific requisition

Sections most often in play

Section 92D Section 143(3)Section 271AA Section 92CA Section 10D Section 153A Section 271G Section 132

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 92d(3)section 92ca(2)section 271g section 271ba section 92d section 92f specified domestic transaction section 9(1)(i)corporate guarantee transfer pricing order section 271aa section 129

Judgments citing CIT v. M/s. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Dy CIT - 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Doshion Water Solution P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1711/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92DSection 92D(3)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Doshion Water Income Tax 6 (2) (2) Solution Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 504, Aayakar 347, Ware Housing Bhavan, M.K. Road, v/s Complex, ACME, Mumbai-400 020 Compound Road, Wadala, Mumbai-400 037 PAN No. AACCD8958M Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Department by Ms. Samruddhi D Hande, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 25-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement 21-10-2022 ORDER PER KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL :- This appeal has been filed by the Revenue as against the order of learned Commi…

The DCIT Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemical Ltd(Formerly As M/S.Dishman Carbogen Amcis Ltd), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1451/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar, AR & Parin Shah, AR

Section 115JSection 271GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92D(3)

…urnished by the assessee within the specified time. Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bumi Hiway (I) (P.) Ltd. (2014) 51 taxmann.com 572 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Private Limited (2014) 360 ITR 532 (Delhi) wherein A.Ys. 2014-15 Page 3 of 4 it is held that where the Assessing Officer in his order under Section 271G had not mentioned which document or information was required by a notice under Section 92D(3) and was not furnished by the assessee within a period of thirty days or the extended period, penalty imposed under Section 271G is unsu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1 (2), Pune vs. Francois Compressors India Private Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1504/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1504/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Francois Compressors India Pvt. Ltd. Gat No.147/1 (New), Pirangut, Village Lavale Road, Tal. Mulshi, Pune-412 115 Pan : Aabcf0496K ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri S.P Walimbe

Section 271Section 271GSection 274Section 92C(3)Section 92DSection 92D(3)

…r requires the assessee to file before him. That however, in the said notice issued to the assessee nothing was specifically mentioned by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Leory Somer & Controls (India) (P) Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 532 (Del.) has held that notice issued u/s. 92D(3) of the Act should specify information or documents which was required to be submitted by the assessee. In absence of basic details or fact order of penalty u/s.271G of the Act cannot be sustained. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order has observed that it is correct statement of fact that the TPO had pas…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)-1, Mumbai

In the result assessee's appeals stand allowed

ITA 1105/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Section 271GSection 273BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92DSection 92D(3)

…tion to be furnished in connection with the TP proceedings that a general notice is issued by the Assessing Officer. We noted that this issue has been considered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Leory Somer & Controls (India) (P) Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 532 (Del), wherein it is held that when there is a general notice and no specific information of document which is required to be submitted by the assessee under section 92D(3) of the Act, is asked for, the penalty levied under section 271G cannot be sustained. We noted that the assessee in the present case has made substantive compliance of the prov…

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. K. Girdharilal International Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6446/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Kumar-Ld. CIT-DRFor Respondent: Dr. K.Sivaram and Shri Shashank Dundu

Section 271G

…already been enumerated by us in the preceding paragraphs. The Ld. first appellate authority, while deleting the penalty, relied upon the binding judicial decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in CIT Vs. M/s. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. (37 Taxmann.com 407) and other decision of the Tribunal rendered on similar factual matrix. We also find that similar factual matrix stood covered in assessee’s case by the recent decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal rendered in DCIT V/s Leo Schachter Diamonds India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.5931/Mum/2017 order dated 28/02/2019) which in turn, inter-alia, pl…

Procter & Gamble Home Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1097/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1095/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1096/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1097/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Pavankumar Beerila,DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271GSection 273BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92DSection 92D(3)

…irement of Rule 10D(i) including Sub clause have been made with. The learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the following case laws: - “DCIT vs. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) (P) Ltd. 143 TTJ 285 (Del ITAT) CIT vs. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) (P) Ltd. 360 ITR 532 (Del HC) ACIT vs. Gillette India Ltd. (Sister Concern) 168 TTJ 392 (Jp. ITAT) CIT vs. Gillette India Ltd. (Sister Concern) 99 taxmann.com 230 (Raj HC)” 7. On the other hand, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative only stated that the assessee has not maintained audited segment financial results vis-à-vis transactions of the associate enterpr…

Procter & Gamble Home Products P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1096/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Pavankumar Beerila,DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271GSection 273BSection 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92DSection 92D(3)

DCIT - 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6553/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.L.V. Prasad, DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Shetty, AR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D(3)

…Act, 1961 be not levied. 6. But the TPO levied the penalty on the international transaction. However, the CIT(A) deleted the penalty by following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 532 (Delhi). 7. Now the learned Counsel for the assessee before us filed copy of the Tribunal’s order in the case of ACIT vs. Dilipkumar V. Lakhi, in ITA No.2142/Mum/2017 order dated 02.08.2018. We noted that this issue has been deliberated by Hon’ble in the case of Dilipkumar V. Lakhi (supra) vide Para 8 as under: “8. Having perused the material o…

DCIT CC - 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Asian Star Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5876/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha () Dcit-Cc-2(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Asian Star Company Ltd 114/C, Mittal Court, C-Wing, 11Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai-21 Pan : Aaaca4856B Appellant Respondednt

Section 271GSection 92Section 920Section 920(3)Section 92CSection 92C(1)

…rade to come to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271G and his order should be upheld. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Leroy Somer And Controls (India) P. Ltd (2014) 360 ITR 532 (Del). The Ld.AR for the assessee has also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs D. Navinchandra Exports (P) Ltd (2017) 87 taxmann.com 306. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The AO levied penalty u/s 271G for failure to…

Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 5318/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Adit-1(2) Ltd. C/O Mondelez House, Mumbai Vs. Unit No. 2001, 20Th Floor, Tower- 3 (Wing-C), India Bulls Finance Centre, Parel Mumbai-400026 Pan No. Aaacc4968N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Arijit Chakravarty, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Rajat Mittal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Arijit Chakravarty, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajat Mittal, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 273BSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Cadbury Schweppes Overseas ADIT-1(2) Ltd. C/o Mondelez House, Mumbai Vs. Unit No. 2001, 20th floor, Tower- 3 (Wing-C), India Bulls Finance Centre, Parel Mumbai-400026 PAN No. AAACC4968N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Arijit Chakravarty, AR Revenue by : Mr. Rajat Mittal, DR Date of Hearing : 23/08/2017 Date of pronouncement : 31/10/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment ye…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mmtc Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 3378/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 3378/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Mmtc Ltd., Tax, Circle-5(1), Core 1, Scope Complex, 7 New Delhi-110002 Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1433E Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Ms. Deepashree Rao, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 14.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Viii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D(1)Section 92E

…ing of the order by the TPO. It was stated that the ld. CIT(A) appreciated the facts in right perspective and deleted the penalty by following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. 360 ITR 532. 15. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee filed the documents on 14.10.2011 which has also been admitted by the AO at page no. 2 of the assessment order dated 20.03.2013 wherein it has been mentioned as…

Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 921/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd. Assistant Director Of Income Tax, C/O Cadbury House, 19, Bhulabhai (International Taxation) -1(2), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Desai Road, Mumbai -400026 Pan: Aaacc4968N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Sh. Paras Savla, PratikFor Respondent: Sh. K. Mohandas (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 271ASection 92CSection 92DSection 9C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd. Assistant Director of Income Tax, C/o Cadbury House, 19, Bhulabhai (International Taxation) -1(2), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Desai Road, Mumbai -400026 PAN: AAACC4968N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Sh. Paras Savla, Pratik Poddar and Harsh Kapadia(AR) Revenue by : Sh. K. Mohandas (DR) Date of hearing : 03.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2016 O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JM: 1. This appeal u/s 253 is direc…

Worlds Window Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3721/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiworlds Window Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd, Acit, 75, Khirki Village, Malviya Nagar, Central Circle-6 Vs. New Delhi Pan:Aavcg3418Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR

Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

…documents are furnished or not and whether any extension of time was granted by TPO or not. Identically this information is also not in the order of ld. TPO or AO. Similarly Hon‟ble Delhi High court in case of CIT Vs. Leroy Somer and Controls India pvt. Ltd. 37 Taxmann.com 407 has held that where there is general and substantive compliance of the provisions of Rule 10D it is sufficient. Identically in the case of the Assessee there is a substantial compliance. Honorable high court has further held that “Thus, indicating the documentation/information may be floating, transient and changeable. Constant assimilatio…