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

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

2 of 11 comparable while applying the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. 3. Respondent-assessee was providing support and assistance to its holding company and associated enterprises in procuring and supplying metallurgical materials and related activities, for which the respondent-assessee was paid commission in related international transactions @ US$ 0.15 per DMT and US$ 0.33 per WMT. 4. During

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

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

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C) of the Act. I.T.A .No. 2275/DEL/2015 The Assessing Officer DCIT, Circle - 5(2), New Delhi is hereby directed to file appeal in the above mentioned case before the ITAT, New Delhi on the following ground of appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C) of the Act. I.T.A .No. 2275/DEL/2015 The Assessing Officer DCIT, Circle - 5(2), New Delhi is hereby directed to file appeal in the above mentioned case before the ITAT, New Delhi on the following ground of appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C) of the Act. I.T.A .No. 2275/DEL/2015 The Assessing Officer DCIT, Circle - 5(2), New Delhi is hereby directed to file appeal in the above mentioned case before the ITAT, New Delhi on the following ground of appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (C) of the Act. I.T.A .No. 2275/DEL/2015 The Assessing Officer DCIT, Circle - 5(2), New Delhi is hereby directed to file appeal in the above mentioned case before the ITAT, New Delhi on the following ground of appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

92C of the Act with reference to such derived figure of 32% as a mark up on its operating cost, since the said figure of 32%, being a mark up Page 2 of 23 I.T.A .No.-6742/Del/2013 on operating cost, did not exist in the AOs order passed under section 143(3) of the Act read with section 144C

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

2 ITA Nos.2200 & 2201/Del./2011 Income-tax, Circle 14(1), New Delhi ("AO") under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording adequate satisfaction during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) / AO erred in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) in relation to transfer

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

2 ITA Nos.2200 & 2201/Del./2011 Income-tax, Circle 14(1), New Delhi ("AO") under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without recording adequate satisfaction during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) / AO erred in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) in relation to transfer

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD., HARYANA

Accordingly, the penalty in this respect is upheld and grounds raised by the Assessee in Cross objection on this issue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

271(1)(c) is not leviable on addition of 36,28,14000/- made in respect of international transaction u/s 92C of the I.T. Act. (C.O NO. 432/Del/2012) 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the levy of penalty with reference to the disallowance u/s

WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the penalty in this respect is upheld and grounds raised by the Assessee in Cross objection on this issue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

271(1)(c) is not leviable on addition of 36,28,14000/- made in respect of international transaction u/s 92C of the I.T. Act. (C.O NO. 432/Del/2012) 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the levy of penalty with reference to the disallowance u/s

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD., GURGAON

Accordingly, the penalty in this respect is upheld and grounds raised by the Assessee in Cross objection on this issue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

271(1)(c) is not leviable on addition of 36,28,14000/- made in respect of international transaction u/s 92C of the I.T. Act. (C.O NO. 432/Del/2012) 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the levy of penalty with reference to the disallowance u/s

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

2,23,50,953/-. Thereafter, the assessee proceeded to claim deduction of Rs. 1,69,61,565/- u/s 10A which was denied by the Assessing Officer and later on confirmed by the Ld. DRP. ITA 2623/Del/2015 Assessment year 2010-11 5.1 As per the proviso to section 92C(4), no deduction u/s 10A or 10B or Chapter

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

GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground, no

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2. Active Active Directory (AD) is a Microsoft Directory technology which provides various network services like Authentication, windows client management, DNS Software security, server maintenance, authentication of servers. HQ provides support & hosting for AD. AD is used by businesses globally and has about 130 Domain Controllers (Servers which host AD database). There are some Domain Controllers, software and supporting servers