OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

penalty proceedings initiated by the ld. AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 8. That the interest under section 234B of Rs. 4748889 levied for short fall in payment of advance tax for 114 months was legally incorrect as under sub section 2A of this

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

penalty proceedings initiated by the ld. AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 8. That the interest under section 234B of Rs. 4748889 levied for short fall in payment of advance tax for 114 months was legally incorrect as under sub section 2A of this

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

penalty proceedings initiated by the ld. AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were invalid and bad in law and thus ought to have been dropped. 8. That the interest under section 234B of Rs. 4748889 levied for short fall in payment of advance tax for 114 months was legally incorrect as under sub section 2A of this

S. AVTAR SINGH KOCHAR,ROHTAK vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charyavtar Singh Kochar, Vs. Dcit, C/O. S. K. Bansal, Ca, Central Circle-25, 101, First Floor, Kochar Market, New Delhi Jhajjar Road, Rohtak Pan: Aeopk4447F (Appellant) (Respondent)

271 AAA in a mechanical manner and without applying his mind. The penalty levied u/s 271AAA is bad in law and is liable to be cancelled.” 3. The brief facts show that search 0 operation u/s 132 of the income tax act was carried out on 18/1/2011 in case of the assessee. As per result of research, INR 187000000 advanced

BECHTEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT,SPECIAL RANGE-2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-2, M/S. Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., 418, Naurang House, 21 K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacb0298A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Ms. Vrinda Tulshan, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

234B of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. 3 Each of the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

234B of the Act is not leviable to a non-resident assessee. 8. Ground 8: erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act without appreciating that the appellant has neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Ground 9: initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act erred in initiating penalty proceedings

ULO SYSTEMS LLC.,GURGAON vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

234B of the Act is not leviable to a non-resident assessee. 8. Ground 8: erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act without appreciating that the appellant has neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Ground 9: initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act erred in initiating penalty proceedings

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

234B of the Act is not leviable to a non-resident assessee. 8. Ground 8: erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act without appreciating that the appellant has neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Ground 9: initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act erred in initiating penalty proceedings

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. ADIT INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

234B of the Act is not leviable to a non-resident assessee. 8. Ground 8: erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act without appreciating that the appellant has neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Ground 9: initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act erred in initiating penalty proceedings

ULO SYSTEMS LLC,GURGAON vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 M/S Ulo Systems Llc Dcit, C/O S.R.Batliboi & Co., International Taxation Golf View Corporate Tower B Vs. Dehradun Near Dlf Golf Course Sector 42 Gurgaon 122 002

234B of the Act is not leviable to a non-resident assessee. 8. Ground 8: erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act without appreciating that the appellant has neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. 9. Ground 9: initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act erred in initiating penalty proceedings

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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MULTIPLEX CAPITAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed on merits

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

3 applies. Here, the tax sought to be evaded will be the tax chargeable on the entire total income assessed. A combined reading of the Committee’s recommendations and the Circular makes the position clear that Explanation 4 (a) to 20 21 Section 271 (1) (c) intended to levy the penalty not only in a case where after addition

SMS GROUP GMBH (SMS SIEMAG AG),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Addl. Dit/Ddit, M/S. Sms Siemag Ag (Formerly Sms Demag Ag) Circle-2(2), Intl. Taxation, C/O- Mohinder Puri & Co., New Delhi Ca, 1A-D, Vandhna, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aadcs1173J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (C) of the Income Tax, Act, 1961. The provisions of which are not attracted on the facts. 9. That the assessee may be allowed to add, supplement, revise, amend grounds as raised hereinabove. 2. Facts of the case: The assessee is a company incorporated in Germany. During the year under consideration it was engaged

SMS GROUP GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Addl. Dit/Ddit, M/S. Sms Siemag Ag (Formerly Sms Demag Ag) Circle-2(2), Intl. Taxation, C/O- Mohinder Puri & Co., New Delhi Ca, 1A-D, Vandhna, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aadcs1173J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (C) of the Income Tax, Act, 1961. The provisions of which are not attracted on the facts. 9. That the assessee may be allowed to add, supplement, revise, amend grounds as raised hereinabove. 2. Facts of the case: The assessee is a company incorporated in Germany. During the year under consideration it was engaged

SMS GROUP GMBH (FORMERLY SMS SIEMAG AG),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Addl. Dit/Ddit, M/S. Sms Siemag Ag (Formerly Sms Demag Ag) Circle-2(2), Intl. Taxation, C/O- Mohinder Puri & Co., New Delhi Ca, 1A-D, Vandhna, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aadcs1173J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (C) of the Income Tax, Act, 1961. The provisions of which are not attracted on the facts. 9. That the assessee may be allowed to add, supplement, revise, amend grounds as raised hereinabove. 2. Facts of the case: The assessee is a company incorporated in Germany. During the year under consideration it was engaged

SMS GROUP GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Addl. Dit/Ddit, M/S. Sms Siemag Ag (Formerly Sms Demag Ag) Circle-2(2), Intl. Taxation, C/O- Mohinder Puri & Co., New Delhi Ca, 1A-D, Vandhna, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aadcs1173J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (C) of the Income Tax, Act, 1961. The provisions of which are not attracted on the facts. 9. That the assessee may be allowed to add, supplement, revise, amend grounds as raised hereinabove. 2. Facts of the case: The assessee is a company incorporated in Germany. During the year under consideration it was engaged

SMS GROUP GMBH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Addl. Dit/Ddit, M/S. Sms Siemag Ag (Formerly Sms Demag Ag) Circle-2(2), Intl. Taxation, C/O- Mohinder Puri & Co., New Delhi Ca, 1A-D, Vandhna, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aadcs1173J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (C) of the Income Tax, Act, 1961. The provisions of which are not attracted on the facts. 9. That the assessee may be allowed to add, supplement, revise, amend grounds as raised hereinabove. 2. Facts of the case: The assessee is a company incorporated in Germany. During the year under consideration it was engaged

SMS MEVAC UK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Addl. Dit/Ddit, M/S. Sms Siemag Ag (Formerly Sms Demag Ag) Circle-2(2), Intl. Taxation, C/O- Mohinder Puri & Co., New Delhi Ca, 1A-D, Vandhna, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aadcs1173J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (C) of the Income Tax, Act, 1961. The provisions of which are not attracted on the facts. 9. That the assessee may be allowed to add, supplement, revise, amend grounds as raised hereinabove. 2. Facts of the case: The assessee is a company incorporated in Germany. During the year under consideration it was engaged

SMS GROUP GMBH (FORMERLY SMS SIEMAG AG),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), INTL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Addl. Dit/Ddit, M/S. Sms Siemag Ag (Formerly Sms Demag Ag) Circle-2(2), Intl. Taxation, C/O- Mohinder Puri & Co., New Delhi Ca, 1A-D, Vandhna, 11 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aadcs1173J (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (C) of the Income Tax, Act, 1961. The provisions of which are not attracted on the facts. 9. That the assessee may be allowed to add, supplement, revise, amend grounds as raised hereinabove. 2. Facts of the case: The assessee is a company incorporated in Germany. During the year under consideration it was engaged