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

5. M/s Neha Home Builders (P) Ltd., ITA No. 2964/Mum/2016, dated 22.01.2016, ITAT Delhi Bench. 6. ITO vs. Frigsales (India) Ltd, (2005) 4 SOT 0376, ITAT Mumbai Bench. 7. Tristar Intech (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2015) 43 ITR (Trib) 0279, ITAT Delhi Bench. 8. Sh. Navneet Jhamb vs. ACIT, ITA No. 756/Del/2016, dated 11.07.2016, ITAT Delhi Bench

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

5. Learned Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)( c ) of the Act and by order dated 30/3/2015 and levied penalty of Rs. 13,31,04,779/- on the addition relating to the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10A of the Act and also the disallowance of deduction of expenses incurred towards earning of income under

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

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

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.

u/s 10A was an inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee and was not on account of willful conduct. 2 Quantum Coders Ltd. 4. 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

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)

5) of section 80HHE of the I. T. Act, once the deduction is claimed under this section, no deduction can be allowed for the same or any other year. Hence, the assessee was' provided an opportunity to show cause why the claim of deduction u/s 10A of the IT. Act should not be disallowed. The assessee repeated the arguments which

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

10A on voluntary transfer pricing adjustment made by the appellant. B.2 Set off of brought forward loss. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred and the Hon'ble DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the AO in not allowing set off of brought forward loss of Rs. 5

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

BT E- SERV (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 99/Del/2016 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011 – 12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Bt E-Serv (India) Pvt. Ltd, Ito, 11Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Ward-5(2), Vs. Nehru Place, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadcb2533M (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 24. the learned AO has erred in levying interest under sections 234B and 234D of the Act while completely disregarding the provisions of the Act and the judicial precedence.” 5. Though the assessee has raised 24 grounds in this appeal divided into first 13 grounds on Transfer Pricing issues

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

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

5 The Assessing Officer has erred in law and on the facts of the case in initiating the 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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

penalty proceedings in abeyance 17.03.2011 Annexure P-7 on pg. 117 of WP 12.04.2012 Annexure P- 6 on Pg. 50 of WP - - 26.08.2015 Annexure P-7 on pg. 198 of WP 6 ITAT Order 28.06.2016 Annexure P-8 on pg. 118 of WP 28.06.2016 Annexure P- 7 on Pg. 53 of WP 28.06.2016 Annexure

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

penalty proceedings in abeyance 17.03.2011 Annexure P-7 on pg. 117 of WP 12.04.2012 Annexure P- 6 on Pg. 50 of WP - - 26.08.2015 Annexure P-7 on pg. 198 of WP 6 ITAT Order 28.06.2016 Annexure P-8 on pg. 118 of WP 28.06.2016 Annexure P- 7 on Pg. 53 of WP 28.06.2016 Annexure

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

penalty proceedings in abeyance 17.03.2011 Annexure P-7 on pg. 117 of WP 12.04.2012 Annexure P- 6 on Pg. 50 of WP - - 26.08.2015 Annexure P-7 on pg. 198 of WP 6 ITAT Order 28.06.2016 Annexure P-8 on pg. 118 of WP 28.06.2016 Annexure P- 7 on Pg. 53 of WP 28.06.2016 Annexure