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

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. 9. CIT vs. Dalmia Dyechem Industries Ltd., (2015) 0279 CTR 133, High Court of Bombay. 10. CIT vs. M/s SSA/s Emerald Meadows, SLP No. 23272/2016, dated 05.08.2016, Supreme Court of India

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

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

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 10A of the Act and remaining 95% to be eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. Aggrieved by this, both

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

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 10A of the Act and remaining 95% to be eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. Aggrieved by this, both

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, the deduction from total income derived by an undertaking from the export of articles or things or computer software was provided for a period of 10 consecutive years which commences from the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking beings to manufacture or produce such article or thing or computer software. According

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)

7. During the year under consideration the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10A of the Act of Rs. 4,97,09,121/- and during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) assessee did not furnished any evidence so as to deviate from the stand already taken by the Department on the issue. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the facts

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.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation 7. Ground No. 1 is general in nature, hence dismissed. Ground No. 2 is correlated with Ground No. 10.1 and 10.2 and are related to disallowance of prior period expenses. Hence Ground No. 2 is discussed alongwith Ground

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation 7. Ground No. 1 is general in nature, hence dismissed. Ground No. 2 is correlated with Ground No. 10.1 and 10.2 and are related to disallowance of prior period expenses. Hence Ground No. 2 is discussed alongwith Ground

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

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

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

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).” 4. Alcatel Development India Private Limited (“ADIPL”) was originally incorporated as a private limited company in the name of Alcatel Development Center Chennai Private Limited on 3rd March 1998. Until the financial year 2002-03, ADIPL had only one captive business unit under fixed communication group, Alcatel’s Indian Development Centers, located in Gurgoan & Chennai

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).” 4. Alcatel Development India Private Limited (“ADIPL”) was originally incorporated as a private limited company in the name of Alcatel Development Center Chennai Private Limited on 3rd March 1998. Until the financial year 2002-03, ADIPL had only one captive business unit under fixed communication group, Alcatel’s Indian Development Centers, located in Gurgoan & Chennai

UTSTARCOM INC. (INDIA BRANCH),GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1 )(c) of the Act as per the impugned order consequential to the above disallowances. The above grounds are notwithstanding and without prejudice to each other. The objections embodied in the above grounds are mutually exclusive.” 5 ITA Nos.5848/Del./2011 2. Assessee company, M/s. UT Starcom Inc. (India Branch), USA (UTS US), being global leader

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant- assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 80-IA(8) such that no disallowance is warranted. The Ld. DRP/AO has erred in not considering 17. the fact that the Ld. DRP in the assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 adjudicated similar issue i.e. claim u/s 10A(1A) in respect of intra-unit transfer & directed Ld. AO to allow the claim after verification. Without prejudice

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