M/S. JINDAL STEEL & POWER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, HISAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

transferred to reserve account and Rs. 49,41,849 gratuity disallowed under section 40A(7) of the Act and c) Rs. 5,91,106/-; addition on account of disallowance of additional depreciation on computer software 3. Simultaneously, penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated on account of concealment of income as well as for furnishing

JET LITE (INDIA) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6 (NOW CC-1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmajet Lite (India) Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 13, Community Central Circle-6, Centre, Yusuf Sarai, (Now Cc-1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcs4480L

transfer of the shares and had not come clean with all the relevant facts and documents for the purpose of ascertainment of the exact nature of the transactions which obviously covers both the limbs section 271(1)(c) i.e concealment of particulars of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars. No doubt, penalty Jet Lite (India) Ltd proceedings

CHEGG INDIA (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 6(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

price qua international transactions carried out by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises (AE), the penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by way of issuance of notices dated 29.04.2016 & 14.10.2016 u/s 274 r/w section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, Assessing Officer (AO) levied the penalty of Rs.22

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2006-07 & Ay: 2007-08

271(1)(c) ) of the Act in respect of (i) transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 28,89,032 on the transaction of export of stainless steel coil and (ii) Rs. 1,45,001 with respect to disallowance of donation expense, made in the assessment order passed under section

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2006-07 & Ay: 2007-08

271(1)(c) ) of the Act in respect of (i) transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 28,89,032 on the transaction of export of stainless steel coil and (ii) Rs. 1,45,001 with respect to disallowance of donation expense, made in the assessment order passed under section

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) rejected nine of them and based upon the surviving data, determined the Arms Length Pricing (ALP) and made adjustments in the final return. The Assessing Officer (AO), while accepting TPO’s determination, was of the opinion that as per Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

transfer pricing adjustment as proposed by the TPO and disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10B of the Act.  Said final assessment order was accompanied by notice of demand issued under section 156 and notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c

DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. HTC INDIA PVT LTD, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

transfer pricing adjustment, if the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the authority that the price charged or paid in such a transaction was in accordance with the provisions of section 92C and such price was computed as per the manner prescribed under that section in good faith and due diligence. This divulges that penalty u/s 271(1)(c

NOBLE RESOURCE & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act.” 8. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are general in nature and in fact, support Ground Nos. 3 to 6 of the grounds of appeal, therefore they do not deserve any adjudication specifically, and hence they are dismissed. 9. Ground No. 3 is with respect to the rejection

NOBLE RESOURCES & TRADING INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 271(1 )(c) of the Act.” 8. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal are general in nature and in fact, support Ground Nos. 3 to 6 of the grounds of appeal, therefore they do not deserve any adjudication specifically, and hence they are dismissed. 9. Ground No. 3 is with respect to the rejection

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, vs. SINOSTEEL INDIA PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

transfer pricing report had not mentioned that the lower rate of commission was at arm's length when compared to internal comparable. Further, the respondent-assessee had not acted with due diligence. In view of Explanation 7 to Section 271 (1)(c

MITSUI PRIME ADVANCED COMPOSITES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri C.M. Garg, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

transfer pricing adjustment, if the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the authority that the price charged or paid in such a transaction was in accordance with the provisions of section 92C and such price was computed as per the manner prescribed under that section in good faith and due diligence. This divulges that penalty u/s 271(1)(c

GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 271(1) (c) can be divided into two parts or reasons. The Tribunal in the above quotation has referred to disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer, which was settled beyond doubt and debate for the appellant-assessee had accepted the additions made in the assessment orders. Mere surrender and voluntary ITA Nos.398 & 399 of 2017 Page

GRANITE GATE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Section 271(1) (c) can be divided into two parts or reasons. The Tribunal in the above quotation has referred to disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer, which was settled beyond doubt and debate for the appellant-assessee had accepted the additions made in the assessment orders. Mere surrender and voluntary ITA Nos.398 & 399 of 2017 Page

MARY KAY COSMETICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Mary Kay Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., Dy.Commissioner Of 837 & 838, Sector 38, Income Tax, Vs Opposite Huda Market, Circle 16(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Adv. Department By: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

c) of the Act read with Explanation 1 without appreciating that, being a Transfer Pricing addition under section 92C of the Act, the Explanation 1 to Section 271

QUIPPO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transferred. With respect to the current liabilities, it has only the advances received and other petty liabilities. Thus, on verification of the balance sheet also it does not show that assessee is carrying on any business. It has only acquisition of the shares of WTTL in which now company is holding 49% shares on account of above demerger. Reliance placed

QUIPPO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA number 2191/del/2017 for assessment year 2010 – 11 is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transferred. With respect to the current liabilities, it has only the advances received and other petty liabilities. Thus, on verification of the balance sheet also it does not show that assessee is carrying on any business. It has only acquisition of the shares of WTTL in which now company is holding 49% shares on account of above demerger. Reliance placed