BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

54 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 92Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi54Mumbai20Kolkata10Hyderabad8Ahmedabad4Bangalore4Visakhapatnam3Jaipur2Chennai1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)66Section 92C50Transfer Pricing45Addition to Income41Deduction21Comparables/TP19Section 271G16Section 144C14Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. HTC INDIA PVT LTD, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1785/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kr. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed. In this regard, we find that the relevant provision is Explanation 7 to section 271(1), which reads as under:- "Explanation 7.—Where in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction or specified domestic transaction defined in section 92B

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

13
Section 143(2)12
Section 144C(5)12
Section 92B11

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

92B of the Act with Rule 10 of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Hence, the AO invoked provisions of Section 271G and levied penalty @ 2% of the value of the transactions which the ld. CIT(A) confirmed. 12. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. It is an undisputable fact that during

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6722/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

92B of the Act with Rule 10 of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Hence, the AO invoked provisions of Section 271G and levied penalty @ 2% of the value of the transactions which the ld. CIT(A) confirmed. 12. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. It is an undisputable fact that during

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEMALTO DIGITAL SECURITY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2191/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumardcit Vs. Gemalto Digital Security Circle – 10(1) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, A Wing New Delhi Berjaya House, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110 065 Pan No. Aabcs 5455 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv. S/Shri Sushil Kumar & Shri Pravesh Sharma, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amit Kumar Jain, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.05.2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar:

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

271(1)(c) provided that; “Explanation 7- Where in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction 64for specified domestic transaction) defined in section 92B, any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income under sub-section (4) of section 92C, then, the amount so added or disallowed shall, for the purposes of clause

CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 485/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ankul Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant on account of the above adjustments made in the assessment order.” 3. The grounds to be adjudicated are, 1. Interest on receivables 2. Capitalization of wireless ports 3. Allocation of expenses 4. Capital reserves and 5. Employee compensation 6 Concentrix Daksh Services India

OLYMPUS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), GURUGRAM

In the result, the ground of the assessee from serial No

ITA 838/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254Section 92C

u/s. 144C (5) of the Act on 27-08-2020, consequently; a fresh final assessment order has been passed on 30/04/2021, wherein the Ld. A.O held that, there was existence of international transaction of Advertising Marketing and Promotion (‘AMP’) expense and made additions. 7. Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 30/04/2021, the assessee is before this Tribunal

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

271 or section 271BA, if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction,— (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 92D; (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so; or (iii) maintains or furnishes

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

ITA 8361/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K,. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

92B of theAct. We notice that section 92C(1) of the Act postulates arms length price computation by applying six methods namely; comparable un-controlled price method (CUP), re-sale price Vodafone Idea Ltd method (RPM), cost method (CPM), profit split method (PSM), transactional net margin method (TNMM) and the residuary one such other methods as may be prescribed

FUJITSU INDIA P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 693/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Fujitsu India P. Ltd., Vs National Faceless Assessment Rectangale-1, D-4, Centre, District Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan: Aaacf4170D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate, Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar & Shri Kaskaran Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. The facts in brief are that Fujitsu India Private Limited (‘Fujitsu India’/ the ‘Company’/ the ‘Assessee’) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fujitsu Technology Solutions, Holding

BACARDI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4517/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandraita No. 4069/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 4070/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Addl. Cit, Vs Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-02, S-405 (Lgf), Gk Part-Ii, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb3944R Ita No. 4517/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 4518/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 805-808, Time Tower, M. G. Special Range-02, Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb3944R Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. & Sh. S. Chakarborty, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR

penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) and 271AA of the Act.” 5. Bacardi India Private Limited, a 74:26 JV between Bacardi International Limited and Gemini Distilleries, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of alcoholic beverages in the licensed territory. The Appellant predominantly operates as the 'exclusive' licensed manufacturer of alcoholic beverages (under the brand name

ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE-02, NEW DELHI vs. BACARDI INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4070/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandraita No. 4069/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 4070/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Addl. Cit, Vs Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-02, S-405 (Lgf), Gk Part-Ii, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb3944R Ita No. 4517/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 4518/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 805-808, Time Tower, M. G. Special Range-02, Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb3944R Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. & Sh. S. Chakarborty, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR

penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) and 271AA of the Act.” 5. Bacardi India Private Limited, a 74:26 JV between Bacardi International Limited and Gemini Distilleries, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of alcoholic beverages in the licensed territory. The Appellant predominantly operates as the 'exclusive' licensed manufacturer of alcoholic beverages (under the brand name

ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE-02, NEW DELHI vs. BACARDI INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4069/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandraita No. 4069/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 4070/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Addl. Cit, Vs Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-02, S-405 (Lgf), Gk Part-Ii, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb3944R Ita No. 4517/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 4518/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 805-808, Time Tower, M. G. Special Range-02, Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb3944R Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. & Sh. S. Chakarborty, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR

penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) and 271AA of the Act.” 5. Bacardi India Private Limited, a 74:26 JV between Bacardi International Limited and Gemini Distilleries, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of alcoholic beverages in the licensed territory. The Appellant predominantly operates as the 'exclusive' licensed manufacturer of alcoholic beverages (under the brand name

BACARDI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4518/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandraita No. 4069/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 4070/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Addl. Cit, Vs Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-02, S-405 (Lgf), Gk Part-Ii, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb3944R Ita No. 4517/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ita No. 4518/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 805-808, Time Tower, M. G. Special Range-02, Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb3944R Assessee By : Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. & Sh. S. Chakarborty, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Nageswar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR

penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) and 271AA of the Act.” 5. Bacardi India Private Limited, a 74:26 JV between Bacardi International Limited and Gemini Distilleries, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of alcoholic beverages in the licensed territory. The Appellant predominantly operates as the 'exclusive' licensed manufacturer of alcoholic beverages (under the brand name

PHOENIX LAMPS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NOIDA

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

ITA 1702/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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.

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 92C

section 92B of the Act. With these directions, ground Nos.5 and 5.1 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 18. Ground Nos.6, 7 and 8 are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 19. Ground No.9 is regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271

PHOENIX LAMPS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NOIDA

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

ITA 1152/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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.

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR
Section 144CSection 92C

section 92B of the Act. With these directions, ground Nos.5 and 5.1 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 18. Ground Nos.6, 7 and 8 are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 19. Ground No.9 is regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

ITA 508/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

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

ORANGE BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the SA of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1098/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 1098/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1099/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 & Sa No. 252/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Orange Business Services India Vs. Dcit, Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Tower-B, 8Th Floor, Circle-3, Dlf Infinity Tower, Phase-Ii, Sector- Gurgaon 25, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce4540P Assessee By : Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Shah, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation.” 4. Orange Business Services India Solutions Private Limited (formerly known as Equant Solutions India Private Limited) ('OBSISPL'/’the Assessee'), a Company incorporated under the laws of India, is a subsidiary of EGN BV, Netherlands. 5. OBSISPL is primarily engaged in providing Information

ORANGE BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the SA of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1099/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 1098/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1099/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 & Sa No. 252/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Orange Business Services India Vs. Dcit, Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Tower-B, 8Th Floor, Circle-3, Dlf Infinity Tower, Phase-Ii, Sector- Gurgaon 25, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce4540P Assessee By : Sh. Ravi Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Shah, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Shah, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfaction for its initiation.” 4. Orange Business Services India Solutions Private Limited (formerly known as Equant Solutions India Private Limited) ('OBSISPL'/’the Assessee'), a Company incorporated under the laws of India, is a subsidiary of EGN BV, Netherlands. 5. OBSISPL is primarily engaged in providing Information

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1166/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble DRP-V, New Delhi has erred in law and on facts in directing to recomputed depreciation on software licence as per Item No.III (5) of Part A of Appendix 1 of the Income-tax Rules

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1026/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble DRP-V, New Delhi has erred in law and on facts in directing to recomputed depreciation on software licence as per Item No.III (5) of Part A of Appendix 1 of the Income-tax Rules