ATEPL RAHEE JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

92D, the prescribed income-tax authority referred to in the said sub-section may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of five hundred thousand rupee" It can be seen that there are three limbs under which this penalty may be levied. However, while issuing notice under Section 271AA

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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:

271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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:

271-I, section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. LD. ITO, WARD 35(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(1), B-2/38, Ground Floor, E-2, Civic Centre, Delhi-110002 Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, Vs Delhi-110052 Pan-Aafhr8657H Appellant Respondent

92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in Section 271- AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income

JUVALIA SALES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

271 BA of the Act, the legislature used the words “may direct” and in its wisdom the legislature did not use the word “shall”, and therefore, it is not mandatory for the learned Assessing Officer to levy the penalty and it is discretionary, he may not levy the penalty also. He cited before us the decision

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BSC C & C JV, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2011-12. Acit, Circle 62(1) Bsc C & C Jn Room No.2202, 22Nd Vs. 74, Hemkunt Colony Floor New Delhi 110 048 Civic Centre Minto Road Pan: Aadfb8115G New Delhi 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 271AA is deleted. Appellant’s ground of appeal is allowed.” 4.2. From the above, it is observed that assessee failed to file Form 3 CEB within prescribed period, for which Ld.AO has separately imposed penalty under section 271BA. 4.3. However, it is observed that at time of assessment, Ld.AO was in possession of these documents, based upon which, assessment

COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-I vs. M/S BUMI HIWAY (I) P. LTD

section 92D(3) of the Act. The AO may initiate penalty u/s 271 G of the Act. " Therefore, it is clear

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

PEPSI FOODS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

M/S. PEPSI FOODS LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

M/S PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ACIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

271(1)(c) of the Act and is consequential in nature. 2. One of the key issue permeating in all the years relates to Transfer Pricing adjustment of ‘advertisement, marketing and promotion expenses’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘AMP expenses’), which though has been made on different reasons and by applying different methods, like BLT, PSM or Other Method

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., GURGAON

The appeals of the revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3530/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2008-09) (Through Video Conferencing) Vs Dcit Convergys Customer Circle-1(2)(1), International Management Group Inc. Taxation, Room No. 409, C/O. Price Waterhosue E-2 Block, 4Th Floor, Civic Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Centre, Near Minto Road Building No. 10, 17Th Floor, New Delhi Tower-C, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1) (c) and 271AA. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271AA vide order dated 3/1/2014 to the tune of Rs. 10,37,46,481/- which is 2% of the value of international transactions of Rs. 518,73,24,61/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the penalty u/s 271AA, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., GURGAON

The appeals of the revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3530/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2008-09) (Through Video Conferencing) Vs Dcit Convergys Customer Circle-1(2)(1), International Management Group Inc. Taxation, Room No. 409, C/O. Price Waterhosue E-2 Block, 4Th Floor, Civic Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Centre, Near Minto Road Building No. 10, 17Th Floor, New Delhi Tower-C, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon Aaccc8989M (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1) (c) and 271AA. The Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271AA vide order dated 3/1/2014 to the tune of Rs. 10,37,46,481/- which is 2% of the value of international transactions of Rs. 518,73,24,61/-. 5. Being aggrieved by the penalty u/s 271AA, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed

BOETTCHER INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal stand allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2012-13

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee Company is engaged in the business of trading of roller, chemical, blanket, Testing equipments, liner, web cloths and other items related to printing

EVALUESERVE.COM PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

u/s 144C r/w Section 143(3) of the Act proposed an addition of Rs. 13,90,576 as prior period expense to the returned income. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing officer has not given any opportunity to explain/rebut the disallowances. During the year under consideration, the assessee company has ‘Profit before tax and prior period items’ amounting

EVALUESERVE.COM PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

u/s 144C r/w Section 143(3) of the Act proposed an addition of Rs. 13,90,576 as prior period expense to the returned income. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing officer has not given any opportunity to explain/rebut the disallowances. During the year under consideration, the assessee company has ‘Profit before tax and prior period items’ amounting