HONDA CARSS INDIA LTD ( A SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF HONDA MOTOR INDIA P.LTD ),GR. NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

92C of the Act read with Rule 10B(l)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 29. The TPO/DRP erred in not appreciating that the determination of the arm’s length price is in respect to the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction and what is being benchmarked is the “payment

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved by the penalty order of the A.O. assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 01.03.2019 in appeal no. 93/18-19/1121 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal and has raised

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:

3 notice for the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was issued to the assessee on 08.03.2013. The assessee had filed a written reply. After considering the reply of the assessee, the AO has imposed the penalty of Rs.67,09,240/- with the observation that the assessee has filed the inaccurate particular of its income with intention of suppressing the taxable

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]

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act with regard to the additions made in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice to the appellant with respect to the penalty proceedings and as no reply was filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has levied a penalty of Rs.87,29,070/- with respect to the additions made

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

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

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.

3), the assessing officer in the impugned draft assessment order has proposed initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AA of the Act alleging non-disclosure of certain international transactions.In this regard, he brought to our notice the provisions of 45 Section 271AA of the Act which read as under: “Penalty for failure to keep and maintain information and document

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

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

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 at IN 3

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

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

3] Appellant on similar issues and CIT(A) also has accepted contention of Appellant in future years which is evident of the fact that Appellant has computed arm length price in accordance with Section 92C of the Act and has acted bonafide in computation of arm length price. Therefore, there is no concealment of income & penalty shouldn’t be levied

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

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

u/s 10A, and denying claim for adjustment on account of risk.\n8. However, the Ld. DRP vide its directions dated September 26, 2012,\nconfirmed the addition made by the Ld. TPO.\n9. The Tribunal vide its order dated October 09, 2013 set aside the entire\nmatter for fresh consideration of the Ld. AO/TPO.\n10. In the remand back proceedings

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.

92C(3) of the Act read with Rule 10B(2) of the Rules, by including/selecting companies that are not comparable to the Appellant in terms of functions performed, assets employed, risks assumed. GROUNDS AGAINST CORPORATE TAX ADJUSTMENT 33. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP /AO erred in disallowing the salary expenditure

LOUIS DREYFUS COMPANY INDIA PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

sections 92C(2) of the Act, the TPO is directed to compute the arm’s length price as per the said provisions, where a number of prices were available for the same specifications on the same date in the customs data. Also, the relevant date froming the basis of the exchange rate used in computing the price as per customs

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