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

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.7492 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2004-05) आअसं.7493 /मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2005-06) M/S. Schindler India P. Ltd. E-401, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Pan: Aaecs-1548-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range – 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sakshi Dande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai [In Short ‘ The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2005-06, Respectively Confirming Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ In Short ‘The Act’]. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 10/09/2014. Since, The Facts

TP adjustment are concerned, they have been upheld by the Tribunal in ITA NO.7470/Mum/2011 vide order dated 03/04/2023. 3.2 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee raised multiple propositions against levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The first proposition put forth by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee is that the assessee can rely

FUCHS LUBRICANTS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 6(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No. 5111/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2002-03) Fuchs Lubricants (India) P. Dcit Circle 6(2), Aaykar बिधम/ Ltd; Sarjan Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Bhawan, M.K Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 100 Dr. A.B Rd. Worli, Vs. Mumbai – 400 018 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcb0983D (अऩीराथी/Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent :

tp imposition of penalty and hence the penalty levied should be deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that assessee has neither concealed any income nor filed inaccurate particulars of income and hence the penalty levied should be deleted. 4. On the facts and circumstances

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

TP proceedings. 36. The reasonable cause as explained by the assessee was that The reasonable cause as explained by the assessee was that The reasonable cause as explained by the assessee was that  it was unable to ascertain the corresponding costs it was unable to ascertain the corresponding costs  considering the technicalities involved and the nature of trade considering

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

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on debatable issues. The assessee in its reply concluded that, it has neither concealed any income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income in respect of all the above grounds on which penalty u/s.271(l)(c) had been initiated. 4. The reply of assessee was not accepted

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 26.02.2015 which was not in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 144C of the Act and placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: Aker Powergas P Ltd v. Dy. CIT (140 taxmann.com 599) (Mum-Trib) “1. 2. Inteva Products India Automotive Pvt Ltd v. Dy CIT (ITA No. 2722 & 2723/Bang/2018

PREEETI JHANGIANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2008-09

tp the order dated 16.03.2011 of the ITAT ‘C’ Bench, Mumbai. The minimum penalty thus imposed by him comes to Rs.7,27,410/-. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 16.06.2014 confirmed the penalty on the addition of Rs.16,01,049/-. However, he deleted the penalty levied on the addition of Rs.5,60,000/-. 11. Before

ACIT 10(1), MUMBAI vs. KODAK GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION ( I) P.LTD ( FORMERLY KODAK POLYCROME GRAFIC INDIA P.LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

method of the assessee ignoring the findings of the TPO & the AO. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act consequent to deleting the TP

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, the order was bad in law as the same has been passed in violation of Sec. 144C of the Act. In support of its contention the assessee has filed paper book wherein it has placed copy of draft assessment order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the A.O along with notice

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(IT)-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

271(1)(c) on the same ground. Therefore our decision in AY 2015- 11 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited 16 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2016-17 also. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty for AY 2016-17. ITA No.3753/Mum/2024 – AY 2017-18 12. For AY 2017-18 the assessee filed

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

271(1)(c) on the same ground. Therefore our decision in AY 2015- 11 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited 16 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2016-17 also. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty for AY 2016-17. ITA No.3753/Mum/2024 – AY 2017-18 12. For AY 2017-18 the assessee filed

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

271(1)(c) on the same ground. Therefore our decision in AY 2015- 11 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited 16 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2016-17 also. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty for AY 2016-17. ITA No.3753/Mum/2024 – AY 2017-18 12. For AY 2017-18 the assessee filed

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

271(1)(c) on the same ground. Therefore our decision in AY 2015- 11 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited 16 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2016-17 also. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty for AY 2016-17. ITA No.3753/Mum/2024 – AY 2017-18 12. For AY 2017-18 the assessee filed

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

271(1)(c) on the same ground. Therefore our decision in AY 2015- 11 ITA 3747, 3751, 3753, 3752 and 5677/Mum/2024 Cornerstone Ondemand Limited 16 is mutatis mutandis applicable to AY 2016-17 also. Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the penalty for AY 2016-17. ITA No.3753/Mum/2024 – AY 2017-18 12. For AY 2017-18 the assessee filed

ITO 10(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HILTI MANUFACTURING INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A)

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

u/s. 271(1)(c) that had been initiated in the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO provided an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and vide his order dated 27.09.2013, a concealment penalty of Rs. 24,00)21, 523 on account of transfer pricing adjustment (Rs.5, 03, 96,523) and also on account of foreign exchange fluctuation loss

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income. 5. The assessee has made economic adjustment on the issue of excess depreciation, foreign exchange fluctuation and under utilized capacity. The assessee has selected only one comparable i.e Triveni Glass Ltd. and the most appropriate method used by the assessee for benchmarking

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income. 5. The assessee has made economic adjustment on the issue of excess depreciation, foreign exchange fluctuation and under utilized capacity. The assessee has selected only one comparable i.e Triveni Glass Ltd. and the most appropriate method used by the assessee for benchmarking

AQUITY SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS MMODEL GLOBAL SERVICES LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15 (2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TP study, the details are not available with the assessee to apply CUP method, there is no restriction on the assessee for re-computing ALP by applying CUP, if during the course of assessment proceedings the relevant data comes in possession of the Assessee. The endeavor should be to apply the most appropriate method which would give closest result. There

CBAY SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TP study, the details are not available with the assessee to apply CUP method, there is no restriction on the assessee for re-computing ALP by applying CUP, if during the course of assessment proceedings the relevant data comes in possession of the Assessee. The endeavor should be to apply the most appropriate method which would give closest result. There