LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- NOIDA, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Assessment of the Indian subsidiary and hence there arose no occasion to allocate any further profits to such PE. 5. That without prejudice the AO/ DRP has erred on facts and in law, in relying on the Foreign Collaboration Agreement entered between the appellant and LGIL (which was approved by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government

M/S. LG ELECTRONICS INC., KOREA (LGEK),NOIDA vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NOIDA

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Transfer Pricing Assessment of the Indian subsidiary and hence there arose no occasion to allocate any further profits to such PE. 5. That without prejudice the AO/ DRP has erred on facts and in law, in relying on the Foreign Collaboration Agreement entered between the appellant and LGIL (which was approved by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S LEROY SOMER & CONTROLS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

transfer prices to align them with arm’s length prices determined under these rules and consequent adjustment made to the total income for tax purposes; (m) any other information, data or document, including information or data relating to the associated enterprise, which may be relevant for determination of the arm’s length price.” 11. Rule 10D(1) consists of clauses

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S LEROY SOMER & CONTROLS (INDIA) PVT. LTD

transfer prices to align them with arm’s length prices determined under these rules and consequent adjustment made to the total income for tax purposes; (m) any other information, data or document, including information or data relating to the associated enterprise, which may be relevant for determination of the arm’s length price.” 11. Rule 10D(1) consists of clauses

S.N. EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-4, , PANIPAT

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

transfer pricing (TP) adjustment made in respect of a particular transaction, there cannot be any levy of penalty u/s 271G of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Firestone International Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 5304/Mum/2016 for AY 2011-12 dated 01.12.2018 wherein

S.N. EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-4, , PANIPAT

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

transfer pricing (TP) adjustment made in respect of a particular transaction, there cannot be any levy of penalty u/s 271G of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Firestone International Pvt. Ltd in ITA No. 5304/Mum/2016 for AY 2011-12 dated 01.12.2018 wherein

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:

271G. If any person who has entered into an international transaction or specified domestic transaction fails to furnish any such information or document as required by sub-section (3) of section 92D, the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing

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:

271G. If any person who has entered into an international transaction or specified domestic transaction fails to furnish any such information or document as required by sub-section (3) of section 92D, the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing

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]

271G, section 271GA, section 271GB, section 271H section 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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MMTC LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 3378/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Mmtc Ltd., Tax, Circle-5(1), Core 1, Scope Complex, 7 New Delhi-110002 Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm1433E Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. & Ms. Deepashree Rao, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 14.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Viii, New Delhi.

Section 273B of the Act which overrides the provisions of 271G for the purposes of levy of penalty which stipulates that penalty u/s 271G may not be levied if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. 7 MMTC Ltd. One cannot lose sight of the fact that whether the information

CITICORP MARUTI FINANCE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07 Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd., Vs Dcit, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Bharti Building, Circle-3(1), 124, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001 (Pan: Aaacc5029L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Ms Pushpa Sharma, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Order

transfer pricing report has simply relied on the assessee’s contention that none of the methods for the purpose of computation of arm’s length price, as prescribed in the Income Tax Act, were applicable I.T.A. 4634/Del/2010 Assessment year 2006-07 in the assessee’s case and having regard to the economic and commercial factors and also keeping the benefits

COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-I vs. M/S BUMI HIWAY (I) P. LTD

Transfer Pricing Officer by order under Section 92CA(3) had recommended that since the respondent assessee had failed to furnish information and documents under Section 92D, the Assessing Officer “shall” impose penalty under Section 271G

M/S BIO-RAD LABORATORIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) entered into by the assessee with its Associated Enterprises (AE) during the year assessment, the ld. TPO while making cumulative adjustments for intra-group services to the tune of Rs.5,60,22,884/- proceeded to initiate penalty proceedings under 4 section 271G

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. METALS RUSSIA INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri T.S. Kapoor

Transfer Pricing Study was done by the A.O. because the assessee failed to provide the details regarding the International Transaction despite being specifically asked by the A.O.? 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that the provisions of Section 92E read with section 271BA and provisions of Section

M/S BT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 442/Del/2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) & I.T.A. No. 302/Del/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Bt (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle 5(1), 11Th Floor, New Delhi Eros Corporate Tower, Opp. International Trade Tower Nehru Place, New Delhi -110 019 Gir / Pan :Aabcc4785E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv. Ms. Sherry Goyal, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2018 Order Per Beena A. Pillai, Jm: Present Appeals Have Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28/12/15 & Order Dated 09/12/16, Passed By Ld. Acit, Circle 5 (1), New Delhi Under Section 144 (3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For

Section 271G of the Act, especially without giving any reason or pointing out any failure on account of the Appellant in furnishing the details/ Transfer Pricing

M/S. BT (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 442/Del/2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) & I.T.A. No. 302/Del/2017 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Bt (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle 5(1), 11Th Floor, New Delhi Eros Corporate Tower, Opp. International Trade Tower Nehru Place, New Delhi -110 019 Gir / Pan :Aabcc4785E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv. Ms. Sherry Goyal, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2018 Order Per Beena A. Pillai, Jm: Present Appeals Have Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28/12/15 & Order Dated 09/12/16, Passed By Ld. Acit, Circle 5 (1), New Delhi Under Section 144 (3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For

Section 271G of the Act, especially without giving any reason or pointing out any failure on account of the Appellant in furnishing the details/ Transfer Pricing

M/S. ASIAN HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Asian Honda Motor Co. Dcit, Ltd., Intl Taxation, Vs. C/O. Pds Legal New Delhi Atmaram Mansion, Office No.7, First Floor, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Pan:Aaica2531P (Appellant) (Respondent)

price. Ground 9: That on facts and in law, the AO/ TPO/DRP has grossly erred in law and facts in initiating the penalty under section 271BA, 271 AA and 271G of the Act and alleging that the Appellant has not complied with the provision of aforesaid sections. It is imperative to mention that the Appellant had duly submitted

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S JOHNSON MATTHEY INDIA P. LTD.

Section 271G of the 2014:DHC:7415-DB ITA No. 757/2014 Page 2 of 5 Act. 2. The finding of the two appellate forums is that the assessee had filed the relevant documents within two months from the date of issue of notice by the Transfer Pricing