SNIGDHA SALUJA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-30(1), DELHI

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of assessee is allowed

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is unsustainable. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s. 10B of the Act in respect of 100% export oriented undertaking. The assessee had establishment an undertaking on 08.05.2003. The Finance Act 2000 prescribed 10 year tax holiday to 100% export oriented undertaking starting from 1st April 2001. Since, the provisions of section

DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. HTC INDIA PVT LTD, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

section’ because the TPO has nowhere held that the assessee calculated ALP of these transactions in a manner different from the one prescribed under rule 10B(1)(e), which contains mechanism for calculating the ALP under the TNMM. 10. The next ingredient which is crucial for evading penalty u/s 271

MITSUI PRIME ADVANCED COMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri C.M. Garg, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

section’ because the TPO has nowhere held that the assessee calculated ALP of these transactions in a manner different from the one prescribed under rule 10B(1)(e), which contains mechanism for calculating the ALP under the TNMM. 10. The next ingredient which is crucial for evading penalty u/s 271

TREND MICRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Trend Micro India Private Limited, Vs Acit, 10Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Circle-25(2), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacct2082Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate & Shri S.S. Tomar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024

u/s 92C of the Act. Under Explanation-7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an addition or disallowance made while computing the income under section 92C of the 3 Act is deemed to be concealed income or income for which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Expianation-7, however, states that penalty

INSTITUTE OF HAEMATOLOGY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), WARD- 1(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 453/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Institute Of Haematology, Vs Income Tax Officer(E), 11/6-B, Shanti Chambers, Pusa Ward-1(2), Road, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaati4626P Assessee By : Sh. T. R. Talwar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.08.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-40, Delhi. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Relates To The Sustenance Of Penalty Of Rs.68,598/- Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was applicable to the facts of the present case and that the assessee was deemed to have concealed particulars of income which was liable for the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that the decisions relied by the assessee were distinguishable on facts. Accordingly

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

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

QL2 SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

10B of the Act. Learned Assessing Officer simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and concluded them by order dated 18/9/2015 with the levy of penalty of Rs.22,54,550/-. 3. Aggrieved by such levy of penalty, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) by way of impugned order rejected

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

u/s 271(1)(c) for ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars’. Lastly, he submitted that exactly on same issue and on similar set of facts, this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Millennium International vs. ACIT in ITA no. 4956/Del/2010 vide order dated 8.8.2013 had deleted the penalty. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant findings given

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MCT INDIA INFOTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is further argued that there are no bona fides on the part of the assessee in making a false claim for deduction u/s 10B of the Act knowing it fully well that STPI is not a competent authority u/s 14 of the Industries Development & Regulation Act (IDAR) Act, as such, penalty

MARATHON ELECTRIC INDIA (P) LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kant

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. That the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other. That the appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 3. Briefly stated facts

M/S. MARATHON ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kant

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. That the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other. That the appellant reserves its right to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal. 3. Briefly stated facts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MOSER BAER INDIA LIMITED

The appeals are dismissed

10B of the Act in respect of floppy unit II for the assessment year in question that is 1996-97 since that unit had incurred a loss. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer computed the total income of the Assessee as Nil and observed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated separately. 3. The relevant

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

10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated by law to first forward draft assessment order to the Petitioner under section

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

10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated by law to first forward draft assessment order to the Petitioner under section

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

10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings. objections before the DRP, even though the Respondent was mandated by law to first forward draft assessment order to the Petitioner under section

M/S. ROYAL EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

10B to the extent of Rs.3,06,207/- by claiming more than lawful deduction and further claiming interest to the tune of Rs.8,35,507/- on the business income whereas it was not business income and passed the following order :- “ Accordingly, the undersigned is satisfied that it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CONTINENTAL ENGINES LTD

The appeal is dismissed accordingly

10B of the act. I am satisfied that the assessee 2011:DHC:3135-DB ITA No.1324/2010 Page 4 of 7 has furnished inaccurate particulars to that extent and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the act are being initiated on this point. The claim made by the assessee under section