M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

271(1)(c) of I.T. Act]; and CIT vs. Mastek Ltd. (2015) 53 taxman.com 142 (Guj.)[in which it was held that no penalty is to be levied to wrong claim of deduction u/s 10A if there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars]. The reliance placed by the Ld. DR in the case

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

u/s. 271(1)(c) is not sustainable. In Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble High Court held that so long as the assessee has not concealed any material fact or the factual information given by him has not been found to be incorrect, he will not be liable to imposition of penalty under section 271

QUANTUM CODERS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5766/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Quantum Coders Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 501-502, Plot No. 1, Dda Ward-14(4), Building, Distt. Centre, Janak New Delhi Puri, New Delhi-110058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacq1197M Assessee By : Ms. Devina Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.08.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-7, New Delhi.

10A of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming levy of penalty by the Id. AO under section 271(1)(c) despite the fact that the claiming of deduction u/s

DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), NEW DELHI vs. INFRASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Infrasoft Technologies Ltd, Circle-12(1), Unit No. 86 & 87, Sdf Iii, New Delhi Seepz Midc, Andheri East, Mumbai Pan: Aaacb2817R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 10A of the I.T. Act made by the assessee is, therefore, disallowed. For the reasons discussed above, penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are initiated under section 271

MS. GENPACT INDIA,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

10A business profits and taxed as other income. Since, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately." ) 6.4 The ld. CIT(A) by following the orders passed by his predecessors pointed out that 5% of cost recovery to be not eligible for deduction u/s

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GENPACT INDIA, GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2011-12

10A business profits and taxed as other income. Since, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately." ) 6.4 The ld. CIT(A) by following the orders passed by his predecessors pointed out that 5% of cost recovery to be not eligible for deduction u/s

A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PVT. LTD. (INDIA BRANCH OFFICE),GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed in

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 A.T. Kearney India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, (India Branch Office), Circle 1(1), 6Th Floor, Tower D, New Delhi. Vs Global Business Park, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aadca1436G) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Ms Vrinda Tulsiyan, Adv. Department By: Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Ms Saweta Nakra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, withdraw, amend or vary the above grounds of appeal ' before or at the time of hearing.” 3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that grounds B1 and B2 were

CHETU INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

section 271(1)(c) as held by various judicial decisions. 4. Without prejudice to above, the claiming of deduction u/s 10A was a sheer mistake on the part the while filing the return of income and the same was admitted voluntarily at the earliest point of time during the assessment proceedings by filing the revised computation of income. Such claim

EVALUESERVE.COM PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 12. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation 43. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee company, during

EVALUESERVE.COM PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 12. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation 43. Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee company, during

M/S. BON SALES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result we reverse the decision of ld CIT(A) in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishibon Sales (P) Ltd, Ito, M-10A, Jangpura Extension, Ward-3(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2226L (Appellant) (Respondent)

10A, Jangpura Extension, Ward-3(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AAACB2226L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Salil Agarwal, Adv Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Adv Revenue by: Sh. SK Jain, Sr DR Date of Hearing 09/01/2017 Date of pronouncement 20/02/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against

ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty u/s 271(1)(c).” 3. In ITA No. 5554/Del/2011, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the Ld. AO/ TPO’s action of making an adjustment of Rs. 24,34,79,416 to the income of the appellant by holding that

ALCATEL LUCENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar

penalty u/s 271(1)(c).” 3. In ITA No. 5554/Del/2011, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) erred both on facts and in law in confirming the Ld. AO/ TPO’s action of making an adjustment of Rs. 24,34,79,416 to the income of the appellant by holding that

EDAG ENGINEERING & DESIGN INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

penalty proceeding under section 271(1) (c) of the Act.” Ground No. 1. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company was deriving income from its associate concern. The appellant is a subsidiary of EDAG Engineering and Designing, AG Germany. The appellant is engaged in providing software aided services for engineering and designing of automobile components

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.” 11. The first assessment order out of the aforementioned batch of appeals was passed for AY 2007-08 and therefore the said assessment year is taken

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.” 11. The first assessment order out of the aforementioned batch of appeals was passed for AY 2007-08 and therefore the said assessment year is taken

LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.” 11. The first assessment order out of the aforementioned batch of appeals was passed for AY 2007-08 and therefore the said assessment year is taken

UTSTARCOM INC.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Kuldip Singh

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penal proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act as per the impugned order consequential to the above disallowances.” 2. Assessee company, M/s. UT Starcom Inc. (India Branch