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

penalty of Rs.48,22,410/- u/s 271 (1) (c) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 9. Before CIT(A) the assessee submitted that it has adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method and applied return on capital employed as appropriate PLI in order to establish the nature of its international transaction. In the transfer pricing (TP

JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

method for TP adjustment, made addition on sales commission which is not covered for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act; that

JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

method for TP adjustment, made addition on sales commission which is not covered for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act; that

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. ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE IT SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TP adjustment stood confirmed and thereafter the matter was not agitated before the Tribunal. 6. Now the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been levied by the AO simply on the ground that the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 2,64,93,239/- has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). In the impugned penalty order

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]

method employed in the TP report was on account of an inadvertent error on the part of the assessee. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the penalty ejecting the contention of the assessee that the notice issued by the A.O. initiating the penalty proceedings

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TIANJIN TIANSHI INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2967/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year: 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Tianjin Tianshi India Pvt. Ltd., War-25(3), 10, Community Centre, Basant New Delhi Lok, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct5611J Assessee By : Sh. Upvan Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr 8 Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.03.2020

u/s 271(1)(c) has been levied by the Assessing Officer and the penalty order has been passed on 21.03.2012. CIT(A) on Penalty: 9. While deleting the penalty, the ld. CIT (A) held that the assessee was under belief that the purchase from the PE of the foreign AE would not attract the transfer pricing provisions. It was held

DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE GURGAON , GURUGRAM vs. LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY HEAT TRASFER BV- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on rejecting the Transfer Pricing adjustment by ignoring the fact that the Assessee was not maintaining separate audited financials and were hence liable to be rejected and also that the segmental information as disclosed in the Assessee’s TP Report had been created to artificially allocate the costs

DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE GURGAON , GURUGRAM vs. LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY HEAT TRASFER BV- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on rejecting the Transfer Pricing adjustment by ignoring the fact that the Assessee was not maintaining separate audited financials and were hence liable to be rejected and also that the segmental information as disclosed in the Assessee’s TP Report had been created to artificially allocate the costs

DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE GURGAON , GURUGRAM vs. LUMMUS TECHNOLOGY HEAT TRASFER BV- INDIA BRANCH OFFICE , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on rejecting the Transfer Pricing adjustment by ignoring the fact that the Assessee was not maintaining separate audited financials and were hence liable to be rejected and also that the segmental information as disclosed in the Assessee’s TP Report had been created to artificially allocate the costs

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

u/s Page 5 of 23 I.T.A .No.-6742/Del/2013 271(1)(c) by invoking Explanation 7 of the Income tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that despite offering detailed explanations in waiting before the AO in the penalty proceedings vide two specific letters the receipt of which is accepted but the AO he has held that the assessee has remained

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. 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)

method adopted for attribution of profits to PE, by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) is not correct and reliable and accordingly, the Tribunal gave its own methodology for arriving at the profits attributable to PE in India.  PeopleSoft charges and IPLC charges are not taxable as Royalty under the provisions of Act and the DTAA. Pursuant

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)

method adopted for attribution of profits to PE, by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) is not correct and reliable and accordingly, the Tribunal gave its own methodology for arriving at the profits attributable to PE in India.  PeopleSoft charges and IPLC charges are not taxable as Royalty under the provisions of Act and the DTAA. Pursuant

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act in accordance with Explanation 7 of the same.” 6. Vide order dated 21.12.2019, post rectification under section 154 of the Act, the AO framed draft assessment order. 7. The assessee raised objections before the DRP. 8. The DRP disposed of the objections of the assessee vide order dated 17.03.2021. The relevant part

M/S. AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for filing inaccurate particulars of income and thereby concealing income chargeable to tax.‖ 31. The assessee preferred objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel and further submits invoices aggregating to Rs. 1.97 crores by way of additional evidence. The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel vide direction dated 30.12.2013 vide para

M/S. GIESECKE & DEVRIENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2005-06] M/S Giesecke & Devrient [I] Pvt. Ltd Vs. The D.C.I.T Corporate Office, Plot No. 57, Sector 44 Circle – 12(1) Gurgaon, Haryana New Delhi Pan : Aabcg 4223 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2018

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for the simple reason that both the assessment and penalty proceedings are distinct from each other. If the contention of the ld. DR is accepted, then there was no need for separate penalty proceedings. 11. The next issue which triggered the levy of penalty relates to the claim of standard deduction @ 5%. This

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

penalty under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has concealed the true and correct particulars of its taxable income and furnished inaccurate particulars of its income.” 11. The first assessment order out of the aforementioned batch of appeals was passed for AY 2007-08 and therefore the said assessment year is taken