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

SONAL TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

price of Rs.6,80,000/- in cash in violation of section 269SS 2 Sonal Taneja r.w. Explanation (iv) inserted in the Act vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that this tribunal’s recent learned co-ordinate bench order in ITO Vs. Shri R. Dhinagharan (HUF) ITA No. 3329/Chny/2019 dated

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

price. According to the CIT(A), the same evidenced that the transaction was done only for the purposes of benefiting SVP Group. The CIT(A) concluded that the Assessee was only a conduit for transferring money to SVP Group and based on the aforesaid conclusion, directed deletion of the addition made by the AO alongwith a direction

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

price. According to the CIT(A), the same evidenced that the transaction was done only for the purposes of benefiting SVP Group. The CIT(A) concluded that the Assessee was only a conduit for transferring money to SVP Group and based on the aforesaid conclusion, directed deletion of the addition made by the AO alongwith a direction

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

price. According to the CIT(A), the same evidenced that the transaction was done only for the purposes of benefiting SVP Group. The CIT(A) concluded that the Assessee was only a conduit for transferring money to SVP Group and based on the aforesaid conclusion, directed deletion of the addition made by the AO alongwith a direction

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

price. According to the CIT(A), the same evidenced that the transaction was done only for the purposes of benefiting SVP Group. The CIT(A) concluded that the Assessee was only a conduit for transferring money to SVP Group and based on the aforesaid conclusion, directed deletion of the addition made by the AO alongwith a direction

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

price. According to the CIT(A), the same evidenced that the transaction was done only for the purposes of benefiting SVP Group. The CIT(A) concluded that the Assessee was only a conduit for transferring money to SVP Group and based on the aforesaid conclusion, directed deletion of the addition made by the AO alongwith a direction

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

price. According to the CIT(A), the same evidenced that the transaction was done only for the purposes of benefiting SVP Group. The CIT(A) concluded that the Assessee was only a conduit for transferring money to SVP Group and based on the aforesaid conclusion, directed deletion of the addition made by the AO alongwith a direction

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

price. According to the CIT(A), the same evidenced that the transaction was done only for the purposes of benefiting SVP Group. The CIT(A) concluded that the Assessee was only a conduit for transferring money to SVP Group and based on the aforesaid conclusion, directed deletion of the addition made by the AO alongwith a direction

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

price. According to the CIT(A), the same evidenced that the transaction was done only for the purposes of benefiting SVP Group. The CIT(A) concluded that the Assessee was only a conduit for transferring money to SVP Group and based on the aforesaid conclusion, directed deletion of the addition made by the AO alongwith a direction

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

price. According to the CIT(A), the same evidenced that the transaction was done only for the purposes of benefiting SVP Group. The CIT(A) concluded that the Assessee was only a conduit for transferring money to SVP Group and based on the aforesaid conclusion, directed deletion of the addition made by the AO alongwith a direction

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-06 vs. NIKKI DRUGS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD

price. According to the CIT(A), the same evidenced that the transaction was done only for the purposes of benefiting SVP Group. The CIT(A) concluded that the Assessee was only a conduit for transferring money to SVP Group and based on the aforesaid conclusion, directed deletion of the addition made by the AO alongwith a direction

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. RENU SINGH, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

271D penalty of Rs.75,08,750/- in the assessee’s hands; in the Assessing 2 Renu Singh Officer’s order dated 12.04.2024 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. The Revenue argued in support of the impugned penalty that the same has arisen from section 132 search action dated 17.08.2020 in M/s Panjil Batra group of cases indicating