MUFG BANK,LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) of the Act, being against the provisions of the Act. 7. General 7.1 Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. 7.2 The Appellant crave leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal

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

transfer pricing adjustment made, A.O. vide order dated 19.03.2018 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) imposed penalty of Rs. 16,42,625/- u/s

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

transfer pricing proceedings u/s 92CA of the Act are\nvitiated being void-ab-initio as no valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was\nserved on the assessee within the statutory time limit prescribed under\nthat sub-section (viz. 30th September, 2017).\n13. Without prejudice to above, the Id. AO has grossly erred in law and\non facts

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

transfer pricing proceedings u/s 92CA of the Act are\nvitiated being void-ab-initio as no valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was\nserved on the assessee within the statutory time limit prescribed under\nthat sub-section (viz. 30th September, 2017).\n13. Without prejudice to above, the Id. AO has grossly erred in law and\non facts

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

transfer pricing proceedings u/s 92CA of the Act are\nvitiated being void-ab-initio as no valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was\nserved on the assessee within the statutory time limit prescribed under\nthat sub-section (viz. 30th September, 2017).\n\n13. Without prejudice to above, the Id. AO has grossly erred in law and\non facts

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

transfer pricing proceedings u/s 92CA of the Act are\nvitiated being void-ab-initio as no valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was\nserved on the assessee within the statutory time limit prescribed under\nthat sub-section (viz. 30th September, 2017).\n\n13. Without prejudice to above, the Id. AO has grossly erred in law and\non facts

ACI, CIRCLE 13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed and sustained. She further submitted that the disallowance/addition on account of payment made under cost sharing arrangements has been deleted by the Tribunal therefore no penalty could have been imposed against the assessee on the basis of non-existing and deleted disallowance. The ld. AR thus submitted that

ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JOHNSON MATHTHEY INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed and sustained. She further submitted that the disallowance/addition on account of payment made under cost sharing arrangements has been deleted by the Tribunal therefore no penalty could have been imposed against the assessee on the basis of non-existing and deleted disallowance. The ld. AR thus submitted that

ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed and sustained. She further submitted that the disallowance/addition on account of payment made under cost sharing arrangements has been deleted by the Tribunal therefore no penalty could have been imposed against the assessee on the basis of non-existing and deleted disallowance. The ld. AR thus submitted that

ACIT, CIRCLE 13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed and sustained. She further submitted that the disallowance/addition on account of payment made under cost sharing arrangements has been deleted by the Tribunal therefore no penalty could have been imposed against the assessee on the basis of non-existing and deleted disallowance. The ld. AR thus submitted 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) had been deleted in a somewhat similar circumstance. If we accept the contentions of the department that addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment invariably means absence of good faith and due diligence, then each and every case involving transfer pricing adjustment would call for imposition of penalty

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

Transfer Pricing (“TP”) documentation requirements. 4. The learned TPO has applied filters which are not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned AO / TPO/ DRP have erred by rejecting certain comparable companies identified by the Appellant for having different accounting year (i.e. having accounting year other than March 31 or companies whose financial statements were

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

M/S LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

DCIT, CIRCLE-15(2), NEW DELHI vs. LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

DCIT, NOIDA vs. M/S. L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., GREATER NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent

LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

price as a sale price of the product. In the States other than Uttar Pradesh, the sales tax so collected as a part of dealers' price has been paid to respective State Governments, whereas in the case of the assessee, since the assessee was not liable to pay sales tax, as exemption has been provided to the extent