Section 271AA of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 271AA is DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd. (38 SOT 307), cited in 130 of the 65 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271AA

DCIT v. Quark Systems (P.) Ltd.
38 SOT 307 · 2010 · ITAT
130
citing judgments

An assessee is not estopped or precluded from seeking the exclusion of a company from its Transfer Pricing study comparables, even if initially selected, if it can demonstrate valid reasons for non-comparability.

CIT v. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 206 · 2015 · High Court
119
citing judgments

When determining the arm's length price for interest on a foreign currency loan advanced to an Associated Enterprise, the Indian Prime Lending Rate is not applicable. Instead, the interest rate should be benchmarked based on the prevailing foreign currency rate, such as EURIBOR, or the rate in the country where the loan is received/consumed.

(CIT v. C. Parakh & Co. (India) Ltd.
29 ITR 661 · 1956 · Supreme Court
73
citing judgments

An assessee is not estopped from claiming a legally permissible deduction merely due to their prior accounting treatment or initial stance taken in the return. The correct legal position regarding an assessee's entitlement to a deduction always prevails, as there can be no estoppel against a statute or settled law.

Nortel Networks India International Inc. v. DIT
386 ITR 353 · 2016 · High Court
58
citing judgments

The burden of proving the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) rests squarely on the Income Tax Department.

Pr.CIT v. B.C. Management Services (P.) Ltd.
89 Taxmann.com 68 · 2018 · High Court
56
citing judgments

Notional interest on delayed payments received from an Associated Enterprise (AE) cannot be treated as part of the income for tax purposes, thereby no question of law arises regarding such adjustments by the TPO/AO.

Premier Breweries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
372 ITR 180 · 2015 · Supreme Court
52
citing judgments

Whether an assessee has shown 'reasonable cause' under Section 273B, particularly in the context of penalties under Section 271D for violations of Section 269SS, is a question of law involving a legal inference from primary facts. Penalties under Section 271D are not leviable if reasonable cause is established, even for journal entries, provided transactions are genuine and bona fide.

Centrica India Offshore (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
44 Taxmann.com 300 · 2014 · High Court
48
citing judgments
VVF Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
12 Taxmann.com 132 · 2011 · ITAT
38
citing judgments
S.A. Builders v. CIT
289 ITR 26 · 2007 · Supreme Court
37
citing judgments

The revenue authorities cannot substitute their judgment for that of the businessman or the board of directors to decide what expenditure is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

CIT v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai & Co.
18 ITR 472 · 1950 · Supreme Court
34
citing judgments

Profits derived from manufacturing and sale activities should be apportioned based on well-established accountancy principles, attributing a greater portion to the manufacturing activity at the place of manufacture.

Judgments on Section 271AA

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4280/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 271ASection 44DSection 5Section 92C

Showing 120 of 65 · Page 1 of 4