Search: penalty u/s 271

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2298/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 144C(13)

271 of the Act, dt. 27/11/2015. 7/11/2015. 2.1.2. The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s The assessee replied on 23/12/2015, stating that the said notice issued u/s 274/271 of the Act, received along with the order passed u/s 144C

DCIT, CIR-11(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S P C CHANDRA (JEWELLERS) PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1197/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dct, Crcle-11(2), V/S. M/S P.C. Chandra P-7, Chowringhee (Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd., Square, Kolkta-69 49C, Gaiahat Road, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aabcp 8654 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 06.07.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-11, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.08.2013 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Revenue Has Raised Following Ground:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Assessee Ld. Cit Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.23,68,786/- Imposed U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 1961. 2. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Delete Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or All The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

36(1)(iii) for interest paid on loan taken for purchase of shares. The AO disallowed the interest u/s 14A and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the claim was unsustainable. The penalty was deleted by the appellate authorities. ITA No.1197/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Cir-11(2), Kol. Vs. M/s PCC(Jewellers), Pvt. Ltd. Page

M/S. MOUNT EVEREST MINERAL WATER LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 1498/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

VIII, New Delhi dated 31.01.2014 in relation to penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds : 2 ITA Nos. 1498 & 2283/Del./2014 Grounds raised in Revenue’s appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 2723/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

VIII, Mumbai (The CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in attributing the entire alleged short fall in the profit margin of the appellant to the international transactions, in making the transfer pricing adjustment amounting to INR 26,032,000 instead of computing the transfer pricing adjustment only to the extent of the proportionate share of the value

ACIT - 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3183/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

VIII, Mumbai (The CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in attributing the entire alleged short fall in the profit margin of the appellant to the international transactions, in making the transfer pricing adjustment amounting to INR 26,032,000 instead of computing the transfer pricing adjustment only to the extent of the proportionate share of the value

DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEM INDIA P.LTD),

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 164/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

VIII, Mumbai (The CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in attributing the entire alleged short fall in the profit margin of the appellant to the international transactions, in making the transfer pricing adjustment amounting to INR 26,032,000 instead of computing the transfer pricing adjustment only to the extent of the proportionate share of the value