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

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

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

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

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

OLYMPUS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), GURUGRAM

In the result, the ground of the assessee from serial No

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

271 (1 )(c) of the Act.” 8. The first un-numbered ground and Grounds No. 1 and 2 are too general in nature, which require no adjudication. Grounds No. 3 to 10 are with regard to whether AMP expenses incurred by the Assessee amounts to international transaction or not. The Grounds No. 11 to 26 are with regard to application

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

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

SRF LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

penalty proceedings u/s 270A read with section 274 of the Act for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof since there was no under reporting /misreporting of any income, nor any default according to law by the assessee. 76.0 That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, change vary or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

penalty proceedings u/s 270A read with section 274 of the Act for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof since there was no under reporting /misreporting of any income, nor any default according to law by the assessee. 76.0 That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, change vary or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds

SRF LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

penalty proceedings u/s 270A read with section 274 of the Act for under reporting of income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof since there was no under reporting /misreporting of any income, nor any default according to law by the assessee. 76.0 That the assessee craves leave to amend, alter, change vary or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds

MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

u/s 10B of the Act in view of provision of section 10B(1) read with section 108(4) of the Act. 3. The Ld. DRP erred both on facts and in law in confirming the Ld. AO/TPO's action of making an adjustment of Rs. 8,09,277/- to the income of the Appellant by holding that the international transactions

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

M/S. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) which is premature at this stage and accordingly, the same is dismissed as such. 21. Ground No.7 is general in nature, hence the same is dismissed as such. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.4789/Del/2014 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 23. The assessee has filed appeal

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) which is premature at this stage and accordingly, the same is dismissed as such. 21. Ground No.7 is general in nature, hence the same is dismissed as such. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.4789/Del/2014 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 23. The assessee has filed appeal

DCIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. MOTOROLA INDIA PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) which is premature at this stage and accordingly, the same is dismissed as such. 21. Ground No.7 is general in nature, hence the same is dismissed as such. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.4789/Del/2014 for AY 2005-06 is partly allowed. 23. The assessee has filed appeal

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble DRP-V, New Delhi has erred in law and on facts in directing to recomputed depreciation on software licence as per Item No.III (5) of Part A of Appendix 1 of the Income-tax Rules

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble DRP-V, New Delhi has erred in law and on facts in directing to recomputed depreciation on software licence as per Item No.III (5) of Part A of Appendix 1 of the Income-tax Rules

CINEPOLIS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Ms. Renu Jauhri[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd., Additional / Joint/ Deputy / 10Th Floor, Dlf Two Horizon Assistant Deputy Centre, Dlf V, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gold Course Road, Income Tax Officer, Gurugram-122002, National E-Assessment Haryana, India. Centre, Delhi. Pan- Aadcc2076J Assessee Revenue

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Each of the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant prays for leave to add, alter, vary, 2 ITA No.-829/Del/2021 Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd. omit, substitute or amend the above