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

244A of the Act. 12. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(l)(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. 13. That the AO/ DRP has grossly erred

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

244A of the Act. 12. That the AO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271(l)(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. 13. That the AO/ DRP has grossly erred

KEYSTONE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated. Besides that the Ld AR submitted that on merit penalty has been imposed due to impugned addition relating to interest u/s 244A

MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishimahavir Prasad Gupta, Vs. Acit, E-165, Shastri Nagar, Circle-38(1), Delhi New Delhi Pan: Agwpg5362M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the levy of penalty amounting to Rs.17,01,220/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances

SUKH DARSHAN SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD.43(2) , DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 271 for initiating penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income Give credit of pre-paid taxes. Charge interest u/s 234A/234B/234C/234D and withdraw interest u/s 244A

TURNER INTERNATIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Kuldip Singhita No. 218/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Turner International India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 5Th Floor, Radisson Commercial Tax, Circle-25(2), Plaza, Nh-8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi New Delhi-110037 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact3821H Ita No. 1069/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Turner International India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 5Th Floor, Radisson Commercial Tax, Circle-16(1), Plaza, Nh-8, Mahipalpur, New Delhi New Delhi-110037 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact3821H Assessee By : Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Rishabh Malhotra, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.12.2016 & 27.01.2014 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2009-10 Respectively Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). 2. Since, The Appeals Belonging To The Same Assessee Having Common Issues Involved, Were Heard Together, So, These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is pre-maturely raised as such, it is dismissed. 19. Ground No. 13 relates to the charging of interest u/s 234A, 234D, 234C and 234D of the Act. As regards to this issue, it was the common contention of both the parties that it is consequential in nature. We order accordingly

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

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

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

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

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

271(1)(c) of the Act issued by AO 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 205 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 12 on pg. 151 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P- 10 on pg. 329 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-10 on pg. 233 of WP 17.06.2019 Annexure P-12 on pg. 299 of WP 11 Response to sec 274 notice

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 are hereby initiated separately. 7. After discussion total income of the company is computed as under:- 1 Income as per return : Rs.4.485/- Add: (i) Claim of loss : Rs.1,01.33.791/ disallowed as discussed above (ii) Unexplained bank : Rs.9,86,97,514/- deposits as discussed above Total TOTAL Rs.10

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAM PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 6219/Del/2015 (A.Y 2009-10)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with section 274 are hereby initiated separately. 7. After discussion total income of the company is computed as under:- 1 Income as per return : Rs.4.485/- Add: (i) Claim of loss : Rs.1,01.33.791/ disallowed as discussed above (ii) Unexplained bank : Rs.9,86,97,514/- deposits as discussed above Total TOTAL Rs.10

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable on claims made but negated by a subsequent amendment. 5. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the penalty had been imposed correctly. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. As far as the penalty

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable on claims made but negated by a subsequent amendment. 5. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the penalty had been imposed correctly. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. As far as the penalty

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable on claims made but negated by a subsequent amendment. 5. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the penalty had been imposed correctly. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. As far as the penalty

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

271(1)(c) of the Act was not imposable on claims made but negated by a subsequent amendment. 5. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the penalty had been imposed correctly. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. As far as the penalty

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AT & T COMMUNICATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 At&T Communication Services Acit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(2), Vatika Triangle, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Vs Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, At&T Communication Services Circle-3(2), India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 380B, Mohan Dev House, Vs Dc.R. Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi. (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent

section 244A of the Act, both the parties agreed that these grounds were consequential. 3.12.0 With regard to ground no. 15 pertaining to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271

AT & T COMMUNICATION SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 At&T Communication Services Acit, India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3(2), Vatika Triangle, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi. Vs Sushant Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, At&T Communication Services Circle-3(2), India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 380B, Mohan Dev House, Vs Dc.R. Building, 13, Tolstoy Marg, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi. (Pan: Aacca8033E) Appellant Respondent

section 244A of the Act, both the parties agreed that these grounds were consequential. 3.12.0 With regard to ground no. 15 pertaining to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271

COMPUTER MODELLING GROUP LIMITED,CANADA vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(2)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

u/s 44BB. It is settled proposition that unless Revenue is able to prove that the assessee has a PE in India, its business profits cannot be subject to tax in India. This view is supported by ITAT decision in the case of R&B Falcon Offshore Ltd. In this case, ITAT clearly held that in absence of a PE, section