PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, vs. SINOSTEEL INDIA PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

u/s 271(1)(c) has been provided in the Explanation-7 itself then the first requirement for escaping from the levy of penalty u/ s 271(1)(c), against the addition made as per the provisions of section 92C

TREND MICRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Trend Micro India Private Limited, Vs Acit, 10Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Circle-25(2), Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aacct2082Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate & Shri S.S. Tomar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024

u/s 92C of the Act. Under Explanation-7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an addition or disallowance made while computing the income under section 92C of the 3 Act is deemed to be concealed income or income for which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Expianation-7, however, states that penalty

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

92C, the Assessing Officer has to compute total income of the assessee having regard to the arm's length price so determined by the TPO." 7. In view of the guidelines issued by the CBDT in Instruction No.3/2003 the Tribunal was right in observing that by not making reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer had breached the mandatory instructions

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

92C, the Assessing Officer has to compute total income of the assessee having regard to the arm's length price so determined by the TPO." 7. In view of the guidelines issued by the CBDT in Instruction No.3/2003 the Tribunal was right in observing that by not making reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer had breached the mandatory instructions

M/S. GAP INTERNATIONAL SOURCING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Prashant Maharishi

penalty can be imposed. 4.9. In the facts of the present case it is seen that the requirements of section 92C have been met as the selection of TNMM is one of the methods provided and addressing the ingredients of section 271(1)(c) the selection of method by the TPO has not been upset. 4.10. Considering the overall factual

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KYUNGSHIN INDUSTRIAL MOTHERSON LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04

u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the Act 1961is not leviable under the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. Based on the arguments advanced by the CIT (A), the Ld. CIT(A) cancelled the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer/ TPO by observing as under :- I have perused the written submissions of the appellant as well as the orders enclosed

MARY KAY COSMETICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Mary Kay Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., Dy.Commissioner Of 837 & 838, Sector 38, Income Tax, Vs Opposite Huda Market, Circle 16(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Adv. Department By: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) for concealment of income by the Appellant. 2. On the fact, in law and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred by not appreciating the fact that the notice dated December 31, 2011 issued by the Ld. AO under section 274 read with section 271

M/S HCL PEROT SYSTEMS LTD.,BENGALORE vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

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

penalty proceedings, assessee could not adduce any such evidence which may prove that the price charged or paid in such transactions was computed in accordance with the provisions contained in section 92C and in the manner prescribed under that section, in good faith and with due diligence as is the requirement of the Explanation 7 to section 271

M/S HCL PEROT SYSTEMS LTD.,BENGALORE vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

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

penalty proceedings, assessee could not adduce any such evidence which may prove that the price charged or paid in such transactions was computed in accordance with the provisions contained in section 92C and in the manner prescribed under that section, in good faith and with due diligence as is the requirement of the Explanation 7 to section 271

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MMTC LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 3378/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Mmtc Ltd., Tax, Circle-5(1), Core 1, Scope Complex, 7 New Delhi-110002 Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1433E Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Ms. Deepashree Rao, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 14.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Viii, New Delhi.

271 G were recommended. 7. The AO however did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and levied the penalty of Rs.46,82,26,600/- u/s 271G of the Act by observing as under: 9 MMTC Ltd. “1. The assessee has contended that the TP report had been signed by the Auditors on 16.09.2009 to prove that

M/S. GAP INTERNATIONAL SOURCING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Prashant Maharishi

u/s 92C it is deemed to represent the income of the assessee in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) shifts the burden upon the assessee to prove that the price charged or paid in such transaction was computed in accordance with the provisions of section 92C

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

penalty under section 271 (1 )(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.” 11. The first assessment order out of the aforementioned batch of appeals was passed for AY 2007-08 and therefore the said assessment year is taken

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (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

penalty under section 271 (1 )(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.” 11. The first assessment order out of the aforementioned batch of appeals was passed for AY 2007-08 and therefore the said assessment year is taken

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

penalty under section 271 (1 )(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.” 11. The first assessment order out of the aforementioned batch of appeals was passed for AY 2007-08 and therefore the said assessment year is taken

A.T. KEARNEY INDIA PVT. LTD. (INDIA BRANCH OFFICE),GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed in

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 A.T. Kearney India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, (India Branch Office), Circle 1(1), 6Th Floor, Tower D, New Delhi. Vs Global Business Park, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aadca1436G) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Ms Vrinda Tulsiyan, Adv. Department By: Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Ms Saweta Nakra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019

section 92C(4) would not have referred to computation of income made by the Assessing Officer in terms of the ALP determined u/s 92C(3) based ‘enhanced’ income. We also note that the Ld. Sr. DR has placed reliance on the ratio laid down in the case of Deloitte Consulting India (P) Ltd.(2012) 22 taxmann.com 107 (Mumbai). However

GENPACT INFRASTRUCTURE (HYDERABAD) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

92C of the Act were satisfied in the present case and no grounds existed for levy of penalty. 3 ITA No.6588/Del./2016 6. That the Ld. AO grossly erred on facts and in law in concluding that the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. a) That the Ld. AO grossly failed to bring any material on record, which

JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as it is a mere change of opinion. Identical issue has been 6 ITA No.4509/Del./2016 ITA No.4510/Del./2016 decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites India (P.) Ltd. (supra) by returning following findings :- “19. Coming back to the Explanation 7 to section 271

JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as it is a mere change of opinion. Identical issue has been 6 ITA No.4509/Del./2016 ITA No.4510/Del./2016 decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites India (P.) Ltd. (supra) by returning following findings :- “19. Coming back to the Explanation 7 to section 271