9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Choudhary, CIT-DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-44, New Delhi dated 13.03.2015 pertaining to A.Y 2007-08. 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty imposed by the DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation 1 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and came to the conclusion that the assessee has concealed its true income liable to tax by way of furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income by claiming wrong deduction and hence it is a clear-cut case for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and, accordingly, levied penalty of Rs. 1,54,67,271/-. 7. The assessee agitated the matter before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accurate particulars of income and, therefore, penalty so levied should be upheld. 10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. It is true that the adjustment on account of provision of software services and purchase of raw material for sim card assembly was upheld by the Tribunal. Facts on record show that there is no quarrel in so far as comparables are con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nother reason for making the adjustments was that the assessee had claimed capacity utilisation which was denied by the TPO/CIT(A)/ITAT. The difference in level of capacity utilisation is an accepted principle though denied in the case of the assessee but then the same cannot tantamount to filing TP report without good faith and due diligence. 12. Considering the TP documentation of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
