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

Appeal is dismissed

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:

2. Revenue filed the following ground of appeal: “i. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.67,09,240/- u/s 271(1)(c) ignoring the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment to the extent of Rs.1

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

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

92C(4) proviso along with rules discussed hereinabove at length. There is hardly any dispute that this chapter and the rules notified thereunder prescribe that an arms length price is not the price an assessee is charging or paying for being a party in the international transaction in question but it is the price i.e. to be paid or charged

TRIP ADVISOR TRAVEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is 7

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating that satisfaction has not been recorded by the AO before initiating penalty proceedings. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty

ACIT, CIRCLE- 8(2), NEW DELHI vs. ESAOTE ASIA PACIFIC DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in reducing the penalty from Rs.827,29,070/- to Rs.2,95,723/- providing relief of Rs.84,33,347/- which was imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on the basis of order of Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition of Rs.2

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

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.

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

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

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar

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

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE- 27(2), NEW DELHI vs. YUTAKA AUTOPARTS INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by stating that TPO has made adjustment on account of comparable companies were held to be not appropriate by TPO. AO also stated that “Assessee [2] is a group company of Honda Motors and wholly owned subsidiary of Yutaka Giken Japan. Thus the assessee is a part of a multinational conglomerate with

ARIBA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

u/s 143(3) r.w.s144C(13) passed by the AO is bad in law and void ab initio since it has been passed beyond the limitation prescribed under section 144C(13). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

u/s. 144C(1) of the Act. Besides these, the AO proposed following additions: (a) disallowance of salary expenditure incurred on expatriate employees on secondment; and (b) disallowance of royalty paid to the parent entity. 2 Samsung India Electronics. 5. The assessee filed objections against the aforesaid proposed adjustments and disallowances before the Ld. DRP-1, New Delhi which were examined

TECHNIP INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, SPL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 6390/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 9852/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technip Energies India Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited, ( Formerly Known As Income Tax, Technip India Limited), Special Range-9, A-4, Sector 1, Institutional New Delhi Area, Noida – 201 301 Pan No. Aaack3349R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Shri Niren Gupta, CA/AR of the assessee attended proceedings from time to time. 3.1 The assessee is engaged in the business of designing, engineering, consultancy, fabrication, supply and erection & commissioning of chemical plants. During the year, assessed company entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises which are reflected in Form

TECHNIP INDIA LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal No.6390/Del/2017 is partly allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 6390/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita No. 9852/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technip Energies India Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited, ( Formerly Known As Income Tax, Technip India Limited), Special Range-9, A-4, Sector 1, Institutional New Delhi Area, Noida – 201 301 Pan No. Aaack3349R (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. Shri Niren Gupta, CA/AR of the assessee attended proceedings from time to time. 3.1 The assessee is engaged in the business of designing, engineering, consultancy, fabrication, supply and erection & commissioning of chemical plants. During the year, assessed company entered into international transactions with its Associated Enterprises which are reflected in Form

MITSUI PRIME ADVANCED COMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-16(*2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 6944/Del/2019 (A.Y 2013-14)

u/s 2 ITA. 6944/Del/2019 Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites 143(3)/144C(3) read with Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act (“Act” for short) dated 24/10/2017 by the DCIT, Circle 16(2), New Delhi. 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal:- “A. GENERAL GROUNDS 1. Order passed by Ld. (IT (A) dated

AMERICA EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 143(3) of the Act. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned have grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend

M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

u/s 143(3) of the Act. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned have grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

271 (SC), it was held that where there is failure or inability of authorities to frame a regular assessment after earlier assessment is set aside or nullified, tax deposited by an assessee by way of advance tax or self-assessment tax, or tax deducted at source is not liable to be refunded to assessee, since its retention by revenue would

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

2. Ld. AO has erred on facts and in law in determining total income of the Appellant at INR 7,218,234,160 as against a returned income of INR 5,526,284,370. Part I - Transfer Pricing Matters 3. That on facts and in law, Hon'ble DRP and the Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO erred in making an adjustment

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

92C (2) of the act.\n\n33. Further in case of the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 ,\nexternal corporate of purchase price of power from SEB is used as a\ncomparable discarding the Indian energy exchange rate by the learned CIT –\nA, and the same order has not been challenged before the higher forum, it\nbecomes final. This shows

KAZSTORY ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 6.1. The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1 )(c) read with Section 274 of the Act against the Appellant.” 3.1 The assessee requested for admission of additional ground No. 7 vide letter dated 06.11.2017 which reads as under :- Ground No. 7 – Without prejudice to our other grounds