ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly.\n7. To sum-up, these Revenue's twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 and assessee's cross objections C.O.Nos.88 & 89/MUM./2024 are dismissed in above terms

144C(3) r.w.s. 92CA(5) r.w.s. 154 dated 28.02.2017, the income was assessed at Rs. 19223,66,55, 142/- under normal provisions of the Act and Rs.26485,46,16,823/- u/s.115JB of the Act. In the order dated 27.12.2017 giving effect to the order of the CIT(A), the total income was assessed at Rs.15779,87,79,234/- under normal

GENERAL ELECTRIC INTERNATIONAL INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

144C(3) of Act is void ab initio, at nullity and bad in law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer ('Ld. AO') in levying a penalty of INR 30,57,730 under section 271(1)(c

PANASONIC LIFE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD,THANE vs. ASST CIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

6. erred in upholding the validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. 7. erred in not appreciating that the reassessment proceedings initiated are bad in law in the absence of any fresh tangible material to satisfy income escaping assessment & ought to be quashed: 8. erred in not appreciating the fact that reassessment proceedings have been initiated

MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASSTT/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

6. Regarding the ground No. 1 of the appeal, the Ld. counsel for Regarding the ground No. 1 of the appeal, the Ld. counsel for Regarding the ground No. 1 of the appeal, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had applied for a unilateral the assessee submitted that assessee had applied for a the assessee submitted that

MARSH INDIA INSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL /JTDY/ACIT/ITO/NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marsh India Insurance Brokers Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income 1201-02, Tower, One India Vs. Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National Bulls Centre, Jupiter Mills E-Assessment Centre, Delhi. Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aadcm 4220 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Madhur Agrawal Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr

6. Regarding the ground No. 1 of the appeal, the Ld. counsel for Regarding the ground No. 1 of the appeal, the Ld. counsel for Regarding the ground No. 1 of the appeal, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had applied for a unilateral the assessee submitted that assessee had applied for a the assessee submitted that

LORD INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaillord India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited (F Ormer Ly Know N A S L Ord Of Income-Tax, Circle- India C Hem Ica L Pr Od Uct S Pv T. Lt D. ) 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, A/401-404, 215 – Atrium Aayakar Bhavan, Chakala, Andheri – Kurla M.K. Road, Road Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400093 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0785H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Dr. Samual Pitta Date Of Hearing 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Drp-1, Mumbai Dated 26.02.2015 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Transfer Pricing - Availing Of Intra-Group Services 1.1 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Acit/ Drp Erred In Determining The Arm'S Length Price In Relation To The International Transaction Relating To The Availing Of Group Benefit Services/ Technical Service Management Services (Hereinafter Referred To As "Intra-Group Services") Of Rs.1,14,87,092 To Be Rs. 22,97,418/-, Thus Making An Adjustment Of Rs.91,89,674/- & Thereby Disregarding The Fact That The Appellant Had Received The Services For The Purposes Of Its Business. In Doing So, The Learned Acit/ Drp Grossly Erred By Not Appreciating The Commercial Wisdom/ Expediency Of The Appellant

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5.2 The learned ACIT/DRP erred in not appreciating that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the appellant for penalty proceedings to be initiated in this regard. 6. The Appellant submits that each grounds of appeal is without prejudice to one another. 7. The Appellant craves

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX)- 3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

u/s 144C of the Act, i.e. to first pass the draft assessment order. In the facts of the case and the decisions referred above, we hold that assessment order dated 29/12/2016 passed by AO without passing draft assessment order is invalid and unsustainable, ergo, the same is liable to be quashed. We hold and direct accordingly. 14. In the result

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

section (1) of Sec. 144C of the Act, after making addition of Rs.8,59,31,291/- pertaining to upward adjustment to the arm’s length price as recommended by the TPO. The P a g e | 4 ITA No.7356/Mum/2014 & ITA No.2594/Mum/2012 Schott Glass India Private Limited Vs. ITO-8(3)-1 AO has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

SCHOTT GLASS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA 7356/Mum/2014 of the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhschott Glass India Private Vs. Income Tax Officer 8(3)-1 Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Room No. 201, Aayakar 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai – 400020 Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Schott Glass India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Dynasty “A” Wing Income Tax 8(3) 303/304, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 204, Aayakar Andheri Kurla Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8583L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ketan Ved Respondent By : Mahesh Jiwade Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Agasint The Different Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Mumbai. Since Both These Appeals

section (1) of Sec. 144C of the Act, after making addition of Rs.8,59,31,291/- pertaining to upward adjustment to the arm’s length price as recommended by the TPO. The P a g e | 4 ITA No.7356/Mum/2014 & ITA No.2594/Mum/2012 Schott Glass India Private Limited Vs. ITO-8(3)-1 AO has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

GLOBAL HOSPITALITY LICENSING SARL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) RANGE - 2 (3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result we allow the additional ground raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhglobal Hospitality Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Licensing Sarl Income Tax (I.T.) C/O Marriot Hotels India Range-2(3)(2) Private Limited 303A, Room No. 1702, 17Th 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Floor, Air India Building, Hiranandani Business Nariman Point, Park, Sahar Road, Mumbai - 400021 Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg5657K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Paras Savla Pratik Poddar Respondent By : Soumendu Kumar Das

penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is bad in law, as the same has been passed in violation of section 144C of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above ground of appeal, at any time before

GOLDMAN SACHS (INDIA) SECURITIES PVT.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 7 (1) (1) , MUMBAI

u/s 274 rws 271(1) (c) are hereby cancelled.\nAccordingly, the tax demand of Rs. 252,54,84,961/- is also hereby cancelled.”\n8. In our considered view, the assessment order dt. 28/12/2019\nwhen once become invalid and non-est, we do not find any provision\nto rectify a non-existing order. Therefore, the aforementioned effort\nof the AO would

ATOS INDIA PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 14 (1) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleatos India Private Limited V. Acit – 14(1)(1) Unit No. 1401, 14Th Floor Rom No. 481, 4Th Floor Supremus “E" Wing Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 I Think Techno Campus Kanjurmarg (E), Mumbai - 400042 Pan: Aaaco2461J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Ms. Riddi Maru Department Represented By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that none of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act gets attracted in the facts of the Appellant's case.” 3. Further, assessee has raised following additional grounds: - “Ground No. 11: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ACIT (LTI-1), MUMBAI vs. TCS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

144C of the Act determining total income at Rs. 1691.48 crores under normal provisions of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act along with completion of the assessment. After receipt of the appellate order passed by Ld CIT(A), the Assessing Officer completed the penalty proceedings and levied penalty

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INDIA PVT LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee i.e. M/s the assessee i.e. M/s Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited (previously "Thermo Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited (previously "Thermo Thermo

M/S. BRIGHTSTAR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act; 8. The Ld. AO erred in charging and computing interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, and withdraw all or any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal. For the above and any other

AZZ WSI B V ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (IT) CIRCLE- 1 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty should not be levied on the appellant under section 271(1)(c), without appreciating that the DCIT had himself issued a certificate under section 197 stating that the income of the appellant is not taxable in India. 5. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 6. The appellant reserves the right

FRANKLIN TEMPLETON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be dropped in the matter. Ground 3 - Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act - The said ground is consequential in nature 3.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in charging interest

ITO 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. INTEGREON MANAGED SOLUTION (I) P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. The brief facts are that the assessee filed its return of income dated 14.10.2010, declaring total income at Rs.2,03,428/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. The A.O. made reference to the TPO u/s. 92CA(1) of the Act for the following international transaction entered into