SMARTSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Smartstream Technologies Dcit 8(3), India Pvt. Ltd. Aver Plaza, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. B-13, Mumbai-400020. Vs. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053. Pan: Aaacq2086M (Appellant) (Respondent)

92C of the Act, in good faith and with due diligence and therefore explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act was attracted, 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the submissions made by the appellant in correct perspective. 5. The appellant prays that the penalty of Rs.29,36,705 levied under Section 271

KAYBEE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(1)(3) (ERSTWHILE JURIDICTIONAL ITO 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.6 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent M/S Kaybee Private Limited Ito-10(1)(3) 301, ‘A’ Wing, Solaris-1, Room No. 25 B, Ground Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai (Erstwhile Pan: Aaack1715H Jurisdictional Ito-8(2)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Jayant Kumar With Shri V. Jenerdhanan (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018

penalty under section 271(b). In our view, the Assessing Officer has given sufficient notice in conformity with the proviso of section 92C(3). It is the assessee who had not responded and now taken a plea that a mandatory notice as required under section 92C(3) is not served upon the assessee. 8. The case law relied

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI vs. PARISHI DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-23(1), Parishi Diamonds, 511, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Cc2091 To Cc 2093 Tower Central Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Wings Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400012. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aajfp 2118 B Appellant Respondent

section 92C(1). of the method prescribed under section 92C(1). 38. The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice The assessee's main argument is that due to the trade practice prevailing in the in the diamond industry separate identity of the diamond

CWT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Cwt India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 2, Raheja Centre, Income Tax-9(2)(2), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Pan : Aaaci7084H (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act and stating that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income. 3. During pendency of the present appeal the assessee revised ground No. 1 of the appeal and raised the legal issue contending that since

CLESTRA LIFE SCIENCES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazm/S. Clestra Life Sciences P. Ltd. Ito, Ward 10(3)(1) (Formerly As Brahma Drugs P. Ltd.) 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan ‘A’ Wing. 604 Delphi Orchid Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400076 Pan - Aaacb5795L Appellant Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The contentions and submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided here in under: i. ............................. ii. With reference to penalty imposed on account of adjustment of Rs.3,86,810/- made on the basis of transfer pricing provisions it was stated that entire international transactions were accepted by TPO except

SITEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Sitel India Ltd. Dcit, Range-8(3), Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, 501, Wing A &B, Boomerang, Chandivali Farm Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400 072 Pan : Aafcs1297M Appellant Respondednt

3) The C.I.T. (A) erred in not appreciating that the bench marking of international transactions by applying the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) was accepted by the TPO/AO and there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income attracting penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act 4) The C.I.T. (A) erred in invoking explanation

ASST. CIT-6 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. ENHANCE AMBIENT COMMUNICATION PVT LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2013-14

271(1)(c) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the impugned penalty order has been passed by the TPO levying penalty under section 271G of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the TPO called upon the assessee to furnish specific details under section 92C within the meaning of section 92D(3

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTH CARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1373/Mum/2015 (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2008-09) Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(3)(2) & Healthcare Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P & G Plaza Cardinal Mumbai Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

3)(2) 2. The Appellant prays that the action of the CIT(A) to that extent be reversed. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUND II: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied by the A.O on account of disallowance made by restricting the claim u/s 801B from

PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTHCARE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1373/Mum/2015 (A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2008-09) Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(3)(2) & Healthcare Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P & G Plaza Cardinal Mumbai Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400099 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

3)(2) 2. The Appellant prays that the action of the CIT(A) to that extent be reversed. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE GROUND II: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied by the A.O on account of disallowance made by restricting the claim u/s 801B from

ASST CIT CC 38, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

M/S. UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD(NOW KNOWN AS UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD),MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CEN CIR-38, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

THE ACIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOROUS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

ADDL CIT CEN RG IX, MUMBAI vs. UNIPHOS ENTERPRISES LTD ( FORMLERY KNOWN AS UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c)) ACIT, CC-38, Room no. M/s. United Phosphorous Ltd. 32(1), Ayakar Bhavan, Vs. Uniphos House, Madhu Park, 11th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. Maharishi Karve Rd., Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACU 3440 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vasanti Patel Advocate Revenue by Shri. Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement

ECL FINANCE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

3 percent variation as per the proviso to the Section 92C(2) of the Act. Ground No.3 - Adjustment in respect of interest paid on Structured Loan Interest on Structured Loan 7) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the TPO erred and the Hon'ble DRP further erred in determining the arm's length

DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI vs. SITEL INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

92C, nor in 'good faith and with 'due diligence'. Hence, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) read with Explanation (7) is clearly leviable on this issue. 6. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored." 2. The only grievance of the Revenue in the present

KENT ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMTED ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm Kent Engineering India Private Limited 10Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Commissioner Of Income Shastri Marg, Vikharoli, Tax (Appeal), 1(2)(1), Gagorre Nagar, S.O. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Embassy 247, Tower C Mumbai-400 020 Vikhroli, Mumbai-400 083 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacr1966M Assessee By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024

3-On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding Kent Engineering India Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 12-13 /confirming the action of the Learned AO in levying penalty of Rs. 8,811,560 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate

SHELL INDIA MARKETS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT LTU 2, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood ()

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) inaccurate particulars of income. The learned CIT has failed to appreciate the fact that the position adopted by the Appellant is in fullest conformity with the decision of CIT v. I-Gate Global Solutions Ltd. (supra). The learned CIT has further failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant h. not furnished inaccurate