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

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

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]

271-1, 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 (c

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under Section 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

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA of the Act. During such proceedings, - the TPO, vide notice dated 25.02.2021, inter-alia, required the assessee to submit the details of change in shareholding structure and other international transactions [refer pages 97-98 of paperbook]; and - in response thereto, the appellantvide reply dated 07.07.2021 submitted (as Annexure-11 to the reply

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer form, copy of share certificate. The assessee also filed copy of bank statement reflecting the payment receipts through banking channel of Rs. 17,80,261/-. The assessee claimed profit on sale of shares of Rs. 17,80,261/- as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. 4. During assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO confronted the assessee with

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1, NEW DELHI vs. AON SERVICES INDIA P. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

transfer : Rs.41,20,14,305 pricing adjustment; & ii) Addition on account of denial of benefit: Rs. 2,04,37,456 of deduction under Section 10A of the Act. 11. Based on the aforesaid two additions, Assessing Officer has proceeded to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c

ADDI. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-1, NEW DELHI vs. AON SERVICES INDIA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

transfer : Rs.41,20,14,305 pricing adjustment; & ii) Addition on account of denial of benefit: Rs. 2,04,37,456 of deduction under Section 10A of the Act. 11. Based on the aforesaid two additions, Assessing Officer has proceeded to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c

M/S. AMERICAN EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend and 1 or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.” Apropos transfer pricing

AMERICA EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive & without prejudice to each other. The appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend and 1 or modify any of the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.” Apropos transfer pricing

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

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 its return of income

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. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved by the penalty order of the A.O. assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 01.03.2019 in appeal no. 93/18-19/1121 dismissed the appeal

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:

Transfer Pricing Officer as referred to in section 92CA or the Commissioner (Appeals) may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to two per cent of the value of the international transaction or specified domestic transaction] for each such failure.” 16. Provisions of Section 273B are as under: “Penalty not to be imposed

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:

Transfer Pricing Officer as referred to in section 92CA or the Commissioner (Appeals) may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to two per cent of the value of the international transaction or specified domestic transaction] for each such failure.” 16. Provisions of Section 273B are as under: “Penalty not to be imposed

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]

section 271(1)(c) cannot be invoked. 5.3 It is seen that the grounds on which the ALP determined by the assessee has been rejected are reasonably debatable. The assessee had obtained a transfer pricing

WNS BUSINESS CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

transfer pricing adjustments, comparable company selection, and margin computation. The Tribunal found merit in including Microland Limited as a comparable company and set aside the orders, restoring the matter to the AO for fresh decision.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "250(6)", "143(1)", "143(2)", "144C(1)", "92C(4)", "10D(4)", "92C(3)", "271(1)(c

VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. ACIT,. CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

transfer pricing adjustment made in the sum of Rs 1,20,54,020/- in respect of international transaction towards payment of royalty. 5. Ground No. 3 to 3.3 raised by the assessee is about Disallowanceofdepreciation amounting to Rs. 12,47,17,47,967/- in respect of right to use 3G Spectrum. 5.1 Considered the rival submissions and material placed onrecord

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

The appeals are allowed partly with consequence to\nfollow as per the determination of grounds as above

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "10", "115-O", "92CA", "92(1)", "10B(1)(e)(iii)", "271(1)(c)", "37(1)", "115JB" ], "issues": "Whether the Transfer Pricing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEMALTO DIGITAL SECURITY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumardcit Vs. Gemalto Digital Security Circle – 10(1) Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, A Wing New Delhi Berjaya House, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110 065 Pan No. Aabcs 5455 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv. S/Shri Sushil Kumar & Shri Pravesh Sharma, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amit Kumar Jain, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.05.2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar:

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty was being initiated then penalty levied by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is not sustainable in eye of law and should be deleted. 12. Undisputedly, addition made by AO in the account of transfer pricing