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

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

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

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT,. CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

10B(1)(a) at this stage. It is evident that this clause prescribes CUP methods application to determine controlled price of an international transaction by the price charged or paid for property transfer or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction; or a number of transaction, as identified. The same forms a price charged or paid in relation to property

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part is reproduced herein below:- 4 Determination 4.1 Grounds of appeal

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part is reproduced herein below:- 4 Determination 4.1 Grounds of appeal

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) separately, for furnishing false particulars of income 5. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the assessment order before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order partly sustained the same, by allowing the appeal of the Assesseepartly. For brevity and ready reference the concluding part is reproduced herein below:- 4 Determination 4.1 Grounds of appeal

DCIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. MOTOROLA INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) which is premature at this stage and accordingly, the same is dismissed as such. 21. Ground No.7 is general in nature, hence the same is dismissed as such. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.4789/Del/2014 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 23. The assessee has filed appeal

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) which is premature at this stage and accordingly, the same is dismissed as such. 21. Ground No.7 is general in nature, hence the same is dismissed as such. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.4789/Del/2014 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 23. The assessee has filed appeal

M/S. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) which is premature at this stage and accordingly, the same is dismissed as such. 21. Ground No.7 is general in nature, hence the same is dismissed as such. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.4789/Del/2014 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 23. The assessee has filed appeal

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s. 144C(1) of the Act. Besides these, the AO proposed following additions: (a) disallowance of salary expenditure incurred on expatriate employees on secondment; and (b) disallowance of royalty paid to the parent entity. 2 Samsung India Electronics. 5. The assessee filed objections against the aforesaid proposed adjustments and disallowances before the Ld. DRP-1, New Delhi which were examined

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

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

HEADSTRONG SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations contained in the preceding paragraphs

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case: The assessee company is wholly owned subsidiary of Headstrong Services LLC USA, engaged in the business of development of computer software, providing IT enabled services, which are in the nature of accounting support, quality, human resource services, etc. 4. The assessee filed

KAZSTORY ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12

10B(1)(e) of the Rules. 3.3. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Ld. TPO/ Hon’ble DRP for the purpose of benchmarking the transaction of provision of engineering services has erred in A. selecting inappropriate filters B. incorrect exclusion/inclusion of comparable companies 3.4. The Ld. TPO hasn’t considered the correct margins as furnished by the Assessee

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

271/- being foreign exchange loss incurred by the assessee on payment of foreign exchange to BHEL as per contract for acquisition of capital asset from abroad treating the same as capital expenditure ignoring the provisions of section 37 as well as section 43AA of the Income Tax Act r/w ICDs-VI issued u/s 145(2) of the Act. 08. That

DAIDO INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act wherein the addition\nsustained is merely difference of opinion and does not reflect\nany omission or misrepresentation of facts.\nThe Appellant prays that the Ld AO be directed to drop the\npenalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the\nAct.\nThe Appellant craves leave to amend, alter

PHOENIX LAMPS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year 2012-13 Phoenix Lamps Ltd. Vs Dcit, (Formerly Known As Halonix Ltd.), Circle-2, 59-A, Nsez Phase Ii, Noida. Noida. Pan: Aabcp7718G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: These Appeals In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 & In Ita No.1152/Del/2017 For Ay 2012-13 Arise Out Of The Order Ld. Assessing Officer, Circle-2, Noida (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.02.2016. Ita No.1152/Del/2017 2. Identical Issues Are Involved In Both These Appeals, Hence, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. Let Us Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1702/Del/2016 For Ay 2011-12 First.

10B of the IT Rules. The ld. TPO observed that the CG and SBLC facility advanced to Trifa Lamps GmbH was part of overall proposed acquisition deal and was given under the supposition that these entities would be eventually acquired as subsidiaries. 8. The ld. DRP admitted the fact that the master agreement for sale and purchase of assets