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

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

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

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) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. 7. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the additional ground of the Appellant raised in respect of non- allowance of the credit of Tax deducted at source (TDS) allowable to the Appellant. That the above

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) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. 7. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the additional ground of the Appellant raised in respect of non- allowance of the credit of Tax deducted at source (TDS) allowable to the Appellant. That the above

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) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. 7. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the additional ground of the Appellant raised in respect of non- allowance of the credit of Tax deducted at source (TDS) allowable to the Appellant. That the above

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.

TP Adjustment Rs. 18,57,18,810/ - Assessed Income Rs. 45,60,62,921/- 5. Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T. Act. Issued demand notice and computation sheet as per Annexure attached. Penalty notice u/s 271(l)(c) issued separately.” 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31/03/3021, the assessee has preferred the present

AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. NATIOANL E- ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. National E-Assessment 1St Floor, Elegance Tower, Centre, Plot No.8, Non Heirarchial New Delhi. Commercial Centre, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi – 110 025. Pan: Aaaca5603Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Kumar Garg, Advocate Ms Bhavya Garg, Ca & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th April, 2021 Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3)/144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The It Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Amway Corporation Engaged In The Business Of Direct Selling Of Consumer Products. It Sells Its Products Through Multi-Level Marketing (Mlm). Mlm Marketing Allows Direct Sellers To Build A Business Through Their Own Sales Efforts & Inviting Others To Become Direct Sellers. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.11.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.113,69,23,009/-. Since The Assessee Had Entered Into Certain International Transactions With Its Ae, The Ao Referred The Matter To The Tpo For Determination Of The Alp Of The International Transaction Entered Into By It.

TP assessment proceedings, the TPO noted that the assessee has reported the following international transactions in the Form 3CB:- 3. The TPO noted that the tax payer has benchmarked most of the transactions, international transactions as well as specified domestic transactions by using entity 2 level aggregation approach and using TNMM method as the most appropriate method. 4. According

AITHENT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the bonafide intentions of the Appellant and prior to the disposal of the matter by the higher authorities. 12. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a software-consulting, providing software solution

METALSA INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) for alleged concealment of income. 5. That each ground of appeal is independent and without prejudice to other grounds of appeal raised herein.” I.T.A. No. 7780/Del/2019 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that the issue in ground No. 3 of grounds of appeal is decided by the Tribunal

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

TP documentation and purported application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (“CUP”) method. 15. The learned AO has erred in not granting credit for foreign taxes claimed by the Appellant in its return of income and has accordingly computed the tax demand incorrectly. 16. The learned AO has erred in not granting Minimum Alternate Tax (“MAT) credit as claimed by the Appellant

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.

TP provision under the Act. 21. That the Ld. AO / TPO / DRP failed to appreciate that as per the provisions of the Act, a transaction can only be benchmarked applying the “Most Appropriate Method” (“MAM”) prescribed therein, only once. 22. That protective adjustment based on Bright Line Test as proposed by Ld. AO / TPO / DRP is against the principles laid

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Schneider Electric India Vs Acit Pvt.Ltd., 9Th Floor, Tower C Circle-22(2) Building No.10, Dlf Cyber Room No. 226 City, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon C.R. Building Hartyana-122002 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aabcs1642G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv. & Tanya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2025

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), 271BA and 271AA of the Act mechanically and without recording any adequate satisfaction for such initiation. 6. The Ld. AO has grossly erred on facts and in law by proposing to compute interest u/s 234D of the Act and withdraw interest u/s 244A of the Act mechanically and without recording any satisfactory reasons

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

TP study, it has to be looked into\nan objective manner before rejecting the same.\"\nSimilarly, it has been affirmed in a number of decisions that the rate of\npower charged by the State Electricity Boards constitute the 'market value' of\nthe goods which it would fetch in the open market and this meets the\nstandards of section 80IA

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

TP study, it has to be looked into\nan objective manner before rejecting the same.\"\nSimilarly, it has been affirmed in a number of decisions that the rate of\npower charged by the State Electricity Boards constitute the 'market value' of\nthe goods which it would fetch in the open market and this meets the\nstandards of section 80IA

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

TP study, it has to be looked into\nan objective manner before rejecting the same.\"\n\nSimilarly, it has been affirmed in a number of decisions that the rate of\npower charged by the State Electricity Boards constitute the 'market value' of\nthe goods which it would fetch in the open market and this meets the\nstandards of section 80IA