GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section (‘u/s’ for short) 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act (‘IT Act’ for short). In the grounds of appeal, and also in his oral submissions at the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for Assessee admitted that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, which are the subject matter of these appeals, were levied

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section (‘u/s’ for short) 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act (‘IT Act’ for short). In the grounds of appeal, and also in his oral submissions at the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for Assessee admitted that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, which are the subject matter of these appeals, were levied

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section (‘u/s’ for short) 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act (‘IT Act’ for short). In the grounds of appeal, and also in his oral submissions at the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for Assessee admitted that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, which are the subject matter of these appeals, were levied

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO., GURGAON

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section (‘u/s’ for short) 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act (‘IT Act’ for short). In the grounds of appeal, and also in his oral submissions at the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for Assessee admitted that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, which are the subject matter of these appeals, were levied

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section (‘u/s’ for short) 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act (‘IT Act’ for short). In the grounds of appeal, and also in his oral submissions at the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for Assessee admitted that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, which are the subject matter of these appeals, were levied

GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section (‘u/s’ for short) 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act (‘IT Act’ for short). In the grounds of appeal, and also in his oral submissions at the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for Assessee admitted that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, which are the subject matter of these appeals, were levied

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section (‘u/s’ for short) 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act (‘IT Act’ for short). In the grounds of appeal, and also in his oral submissions at the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for Assessee admitted that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act, which are the subject matter of these appeals, were levied

MOHAIR INVESTMENT AND TRADING COMPANY (P) LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

u/s 27I(I)(c) of the Act. Legal contentions bona fidely raised, whether they are ultimately accepted or rejected by the appropriate authority will not be generally an act of fraud or gross or willful negligence, the Court further held. The aforesaid decision of the single judge of the Calcutta High Court was affirmed by the Division Bench

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Liquid Investment Limited (I.T.A.No. 240/2009 vide its order dated 5.10.2010) has clearly held that where High Court has accepted substantial question of law u/s 260A

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Liquid Investment Limited (I.T.A.No. 240/2009 vide its order dated 5.10.2010) has clearly held that where High Court has accepted substantial question of law u/s 260A

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - DELHI-2 vs. BECHTEL INDIA LTD

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

penalty under Section 271(1)(b) by an appellate authority does not, by itself, vitiate the prosecution under Section 276CC. The law does not contemplate an automatic corollary between the two. 10. Keeping the afore-noted principles in mind, it is pertinent to examine the reasoning adopted by the Appellate Court while allowing the appeals of the Respondent. The operative

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1 vs. RAJIV GUPTA

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

penalty under Section 271(1)(b) by an appellate authority does not, by itself, vitiate the prosecution under Section 276CC. The law does not contemplate an automatic corollary between the two. 10. Keeping the afore-noted principles in mind, it is pertinent to examine the reasoning adopted by the Appellate Court while allowing the appeals of the Respondent. The operative

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1 vs. RAJIV GUPTA

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

penalty under Section 271(1)(b) by an appellate authority does not, by itself, vitiate the prosecution under Section 276CC. The law does not contemplate an automatic corollary between the two. 10. Keeping the afore-noted principles in mind, it is pertinent to examine the reasoning adopted by the Appellate Court while allowing the appeals of the Respondent. The operative

GE TRANSPORTATION PARTS LLC,GURGAON vs. DCIT , CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision rendered 10 ITA No.6403/Del./2018 ITA No.695, 696 & 697/Del./2019 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA 240/2009 in CIT-II vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co. order dated 05.10.2010 whereby identical issue is decided as under :- “Both the CIT(A) as well

GE WIND ENERGY GMBH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision rendered 10 ITA No.6403/Del./2018 ITA No.695, 696 & 697/Del./2019 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA 240/2009 in CIT-II vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co. order dated 05.10.2010 whereby identical issue is decided as under :- “Both the CIT(A) as well

GE TRANSPORTATION PARTS LLC,GURGAON vs. DCIT , CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision rendered 10 ITA No.6403/Del./2018 ITA No.695, 696 & 697/Del./2019 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA 240/2009 in CIT-II vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co. order dated 05.10.2010 whereby identical issue is decided as under :- “Both the CIT(A) as well

GE ENERGY PARTS INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision rendered 10 ITA No.6403/Del./2018 ITA No.695, 696 & 697/Del./2019 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITA 240/2009 in CIT-II vs. Liquid Investment and Trading Co. order dated 05.10.2010 whereby identical issue is decided as under :- “Both the CIT(A) as well

KARAN RAGHAV EXPORTS PVT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) pertains to the assessment year 2005-06 and impugns the order dated 28th February, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the tribunal) dismissing ITA No. 2012:DHC:1786-DB ITA 1152/2011 Page 2 of 16 5053/Del/2010 filed by the assessee and confirming the penalty under Section