BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

1,016 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ TP Methodclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi450Mumbai225Bangalore136Ahmedabad40Pune40Kolkata37Indore25Hyderabad19Chennai16Jaipur10Surat7Chandigarh4Visakhapatnam4Dehradun2Karnataka1

Key Topics

Transfer Pricing71Section 92C58Section 143(3)56Addition to Income54Penalty50Comparables/TP47Section 271(1)(c)39Disallowance34Section 3729Section 144C

DCIT - (LTU) - 1 , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6267/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Yadav &For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

TP adjustment made with respect to transaction of interest free loan given by the assessee to its AE, RIME DMCC. 10. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. We find that, as regards, penalty levied on disallowance of depression on steel purchases, the issue has been considered

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 1,016 · Page 1 of 51

...
23
Deduction21
TP Method16
ITA 730/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

TP adjustment.” Therefore, following the legal proposition as discussed above and in light of facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the contention of the ld AR that in the absence of any specific charge against the assessee in the penalty notice and subsequently in the penalty order, consequent penalty imposed by AO is illegal

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 731/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

TP adjustment.” Therefore, following the legal proposition as discussed above and in light of facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the contention of the ld AR that in the absence of any specific charge against the assessee in the penalty notice and subsequently in the penalty order, consequent penalty imposed by AO is illegal

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(1)(c) of the Act are illegal notices and are are illegal notices and are void-ab-initio. In the case-law relied upon by the ld. law relied upon by the ld. Counsel, these notices u/s 156 and 274 of the Act, might have been held to be valid Counsel, these notices u/s

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 1391/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: None
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c), vide order dated 25/07/2019. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A Nos.1389 to1392/Ahd/2019 & CO Nos. 16 to 19/Ahd/2022 Page No. 3 Shell Global Solutions International B.V. vs. DCIT & ACIT(IT) vs. Shell Global Solutions International B.V. “Shell Global Solutions International B.V. ('Appellant') craves leave to prefer appeal against the order dated

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 1392/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: None
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c), vide order dated 25/07/2019. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A Nos.1389 to1392/Ahd/2019 & CO Nos. 16 to 19/Ahd/2022 Page No. 3 Shell Global Solutions International B.V. vs. DCIT & ACIT(IT) vs. Shell Global Solutions International B.V. “Shell Global Solutions International B.V. ('Appellant') craves leave to prefer appeal against the order dated

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 1390/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: None
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c), vide order dated 25/07/2019. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A Nos.1389 to1392/Ahd/2019 & CO Nos. 16 to 19/Ahd/2022 Page No. 3 Shell Global Solutions International B.V. vs. DCIT & ACIT(IT) vs. Shell Global Solutions International B.V. “Shell Global Solutions International B.V. ('Appellant') craves leave to prefer appeal against the order dated

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 1389/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: None
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c), vide order dated 25/07/2019. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- I.T.A Nos.1389 to1392/Ahd/2019 & CO Nos. 16 to 19/Ahd/2022 Page No. 3 Shell Global Solutions International B.V. vs. DCIT & ACIT(IT) vs. Shell Global Solutions International B.V. “Shell Global Solutions International B.V. ('Appellant') craves leave to prefer appeal against the order dated

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

ITA 7492/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)

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

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

ITA 7493/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)

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

M/S. JRK AUTO PARTS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3458/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

TP adjustment. Now such an assessment /addition has attained finality as it has not been revised or rectified u/s 263 or u/s 154 or has been reopened u/s 147/148. Once the addition has been made/confirmed in the quantum proceedings, then subject matter of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is strictly circumscribed to such addition only. The penalty cannot

DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. HTC INDIA PVT LTD, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1785/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kr. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92BSection 92C

271(1)(c) of the Act to the TP adjustments also came up for consideration before the ITAT Delhi. In the case of Mitsui Prime Advanced Composite India Pvt. Ltd. [2016-TII-234-ITAT- DEL-TP], after considering the facts of the case, the Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal deleted the penalty holding as under: “7. We have heard

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 120/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, M/S. Adani Enterprises Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Vs Adani House, Nr. Mithakhali Ahmedabad Six Roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009 Pan : Aabca 2804 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, Ar & Shri Biren Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, AR &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated on this issue. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made by the A.O. on this issue. From the above facts, it is clear that the assessee had furnished concealment of income in respect of above issues. Had the assessee's case not been selected for scrutiny, the assessee

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 928/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)

TP upward adjustment on corporate guarantee 2,388,000 Disallowances of weighted deduction on 4 Trademark and overseas product registration 10,658,244 Disallowances of weighted deduction on 5 corporate advertisement 14,433 Disallowances of weighted deduction on 6 expenses not approved by DSIR 163,725,000 ITA No. 928 & 921/Ahd/2017 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 921/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr
Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 271(1)(c)

TP upward adjustment on corporate guarantee 2,388,000 Disallowances of weighted deduction on 4 Trademark and overseas product registration 10,658,244 Disallowances of weighted deduction on 5 corporate advertisement 14,433 Disallowances of weighted deduction on 6 expenses not approved by DSIR 163,725,000 ITA No. 928 & 921/Ahd/2017 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

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

ITA 5111/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2002-03

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 :

For Appellant: Sh. Niraj Seth, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

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

ITA 1916/MUM/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024

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

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh SanghaviFor Respondent: 20/08/2024
Section 271GSection 92Section 92CSection 92D

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KYUNGSHIN INDUSTRIAL MOTHERSON LTD., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3377/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04

Section 254Section 271Section 92C

penalty of Rs.48,22,410/- u/s 271 (1) (c) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 9. Before CIT(A) the assessee submitted that it has adopted TNMM as the most appropriate method and applied return on capital employed as appropriate PLI in order to establish the nature of its international transaction. In the transfer pricing (TP

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1675/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

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

ITA 424/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Dr. Samual Pitta
Section 40

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