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]

transfer pricing study was also filed before the TPO, however, not appreciating the arguments of the assessee, the AO imposed penalty amounting to Rs.1,44,15,394/- being 2% of the value of specified domestic transactions. Furthermore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed elaborate submission in this case as under:- “No mention of the Specific Charge The penalty

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DANISCO INDIA PVT. LTD., GURUGRAM

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment accordingly. 12. After considering relevant material placed on record and the relevant findings given in the impugned orders, we find that, in so far as receipt of Technical Support Services, the assessee had adduced various supportive evidences including additional evidences which has been taken note by the ld. CIT (A) and there was categorical finding that Technical

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DANISCO INDIA PVT. LTD., GURUGRAM

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment accordingly. 12. After considering relevant material placed on record and the relevant findings given in the impugned orders, we find that, in so far as receipt of Technical Support Services, the assessee had adduced various supportive evidences including additional evidences which has been taken note by the ld. CIT (A) and there was categorical finding that Technical

DANISCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment accordingly. 12. After considering relevant material placed on record and the relevant findings given in the impugned orders, we find that, in so far as receipt of Technical Support Services, the assessee had adduced various supportive evidences including additional evidences which has been taken note by the ld. CIT (A) and there was categorical finding that Technical

DANISCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment accordingly. 12. After considering relevant material placed on record and the relevant findings given in the impugned orders, we find that, in so far as receipt of Technical Support Services, the assessee had adduced various supportive evidences including additional evidences which has been taken note by the ld. CIT (A) and there was categorical finding that Technical

DANISCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment accordingly. 12. After considering relevant material placed on record and the relevant findings given in the impugned orders, we find that, in so far as receipt of Technical Support Services, the assessee had adduced various supportive evidences including additional evidences which has been taken note by the ld. CIT (A) and there was categorical finding that Technical

DANISCO INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment accordingly. 12. After considering relevant material placed on record and the relevant findings given in the impugned orders, we find that, in so far as receipt of Technical Support Services, the assessee had adduced various supportive evidences including additional evidences which has been taken note by the ld. CIT (A) and there was categorical finding that Technical

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DANISCO (INDIA) PVT. LTD., GURGAON

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

transfer pricing adjustment accordingly. 12. After considering relevant material placed on record and the relevant findings given in the impugned orders, we find that, in so far as receipt of Technical Support Services, the assessee had adduced various supportive evidences including additional evidences which has been taken note by the ld. CIT (A) and there was categorical finding that Technical

M/S. NTT DATA GLOBAL DELIVERY SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

price as was called from time to time. Therefore, no penalty should be levied in view of the provisions of section 273B. The assessee’s explanation in this regard before the A.O. has been dealt with and incorporated in the impugned penalty order from pages 3 to 7. 3. However, the Ld. A.O. held that since there was delay

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

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

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

WORLDS WINDOW IMPEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiworlds Window Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd, Acit, 75, Khirki Village, Malviya Nagar, Central Circle-6 Vs. New Delhi Pan:Aavcg3418Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer pricing documentation containing functional and economic analysis prescribed under Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules was submitted and placed on the record. Therefore these observation of the ld. TPO clearly shows that assesse has complied so far as submission of details is concerned with the utmost satisfaction of ld. TPO. Further no adjustment in the determination

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer- 1(1), New Delhi ('Ld. TPO') imposing a penalty amounting to INR 17,347,910 alleging that the appellant has failed to comply with provisions of Section 92D(3) of the Act. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disregarding the reasonable cause

M/S. JAY GEE OVERSEAS P. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishijay Gee Overseas P Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 129, Ad Block, Pitampura, Circle-13(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcj1624R (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer-pricing officer. He therefore levied the penalty of INR 100,000 under section 271BA of the income tax act. 4. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing officer has preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A who passed an order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, assessee is in appeal before

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

PIVOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,GURGAON vs. ADDI. CIT SPL. RANGE 76, NEW DELHI

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 6261/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15

price. The lands were developed by HUDA though the same were identified and acquired by Urban Estate Department, Haryana Government, but the ownership and possession was transferred to HUDA for payment of consideration. The Ld. AO also examined scope of External Development Work (EDW) as per Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 which includes water supply, sewerage

TS REALTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE -76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4940/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 4941/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 4942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18 T.S. Realtech Private Vs. Acit, Limited Range-76 E-26, Panchsheel Park New Delhi New Delhi – 110017 Pan : Aadck3222C (Appellant) (Respondent)

price. The lands were developed by HUDA though the same were identified and acquired by Urban Estate Department, Haryana Government, but the ownership and possession was transferred to HUDA for payment of consideration. The Ld. AO also examined scope of External Development Work (EDW) as per Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 which includes water supply, sewerage