MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

penalty order under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act of Rs. 3,08,52,975/- in respect of following controversial/disputed disallowance made in the assessment order: 2 i) Payment Gateway Charges disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) alleging TDS should have been deducted u/s 194H

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(l)(c) of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 31. That the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271C of the Act.” Revenue’s Grounds of appeal (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was legally justified in ignoring the various

PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 31, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(l)(c) of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 31. That the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271C of the Act.” Revenue’s Grounds of appeal (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was legally justified in ignoring the various

DCIT, CC-31, NEW DELHI vs. PERNOD RICARD INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(l)(c) of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 31. That the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271C of the Act.” Revenue’s Grounds of appeal (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was legally justified in ignoring the various

ACIT, CC- 31, NEW DELHI vs. PERNOD RICHARD INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(l)(c) of the Act. ITA No.1365,1379/Del/2018 & 2366/Del/2019 31. That the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271C of the Act.” Revenue’s Grounds of appeal (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was legally justified in ignoring the various

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmabharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Vs. Acit, Taxation Section, First Floor, Circle-6(2), Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi Janpath, New Delhi-11001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcb5576G

194H of the Act. 6. Without prejudice to the Grounds 4 to 5 above, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the disallowance, without appreciating the fact that all distributors / franchisees are Indian residents and accordingly, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made, where conditions prescribed under second proviso to Section

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the erring of the appeal. The Appellant prays for appropriate relief based on the said grounds

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the erring of the appeal. The Appellant prays for appropriate relief based on the said grounds

ACIT CIRCLE 25(1) , DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD. , DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the erring of the appeal. The Appellant prays for appropriate relief based on the said grounds

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the erring of the appeal. The Appellant prays for appropriate relief based on the said grounds

DCIT CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the erring of the appeal. The Appellant prays for appropriate relief based on the said grounds

DCIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the erring of the appeal. The Appellant prays for appropriate relief based on the said grounds

DCIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the erring of the appeal. The Appellant prays for appropriate relief based on the said grounds

TATA TELESERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the erring of the appeal. The Appellant prays for appropriate relief based on the said grounds

DCIT CIRCLE 25(1), NEW DELHI vs. TATA TELESERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this issue is raised in grounds of appeal No.4 of the Revenue in all these years is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.5665/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the erring of the appeal. The Appellant prays for appropriate relief based on the said grounds

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

194H of the Act, alleging the same to be in the nature of commission. 9.3 The ld DRP upheld the action of the ld AO. 9.4 The ld counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and relied on the following decisions:- a. Bharti Cellular Ltd. v/s. A CIT reported

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CINCOM SYSTEMS INDIA (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P. Kant

section 275(1)(a) of the Act penalty is leviable. The ld. DR vehemently argued that the ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee without any legal and justified basis. The ld. DR has drawn our attention para 3 at page 3 of the penalty order and submitted that while the assessee is crediting the 3 respective account

NOKIA INDIA SALES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7244/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 807, New Delhi House, Special Range-6, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccn9141L Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surenderpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 8 Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd. 3. Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (NISPL) was incorporated as Nokia Sales Services Pvt. Ltd. in December 2008. The name of the company was changed to Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd. on March 18, 2011. The assessee company is an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary