9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carried out by the A.O. It is the contention of the assessee that if the directions of the Tribunal for inclusion/exclusion of comparables are carried out by the A.O. then there would remain no basis for making any TPA. The aforesaid factual contention of the Ld.AR has not been controverted by the Revenue. In such a situation, considering the totality of the aforesaid facts we find force in the contentions of the Ld.AR that no adjustment on transfer pricing issue would subsist and therefore there is no question of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on such addition. We therefore direct the deletion of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - grounds of assessee are allowed. - ITA.No.3955/Del./2019 - - - Dated:- 26-12-2022 - Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 30.12.2016 directed the TPO to re-compute the transfer pricing adjustment after making changes suggested therein. In accordance with the directions of Ld. CIT(A) the adjustment of Rs. 26,10,163/- on account of Transfer Pricing was revised to Rs. 49,45,059/-. On the aforesaid transfer pricing adjustment made, A.O. vide order dated 19.03.2018 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) imposed penalty of Rs. 16,42,625/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved by the penalty order of the A.O. assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 01.03.2019 in appeal no. 93/18-19/1121 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal and has raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO levying penalty without appreciating that there was only bonafide difference in computing the ALP pertaining to provision of MSS, which was computed in accordance with the provisions of section 92C of the Act. 4. Before us at the outset, Ld.AR submitted that though the assessee has raised various grounds but without arguing on the grounds raised therein he submitted that the addition that has been proposed by the Ld. CIT(A) has been set aside by the Tribunal and therefore the basis of levy of penalty does not survive and therefore the penalty levied by A.O. and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) be deleted. To substantiate his aforesaid contentions, he submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the penalty be deleted. 5. Ld. DR on the other hand did not controvert the factual submissions made by Ld.AR but however supported the order of A.O. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on that transfer pricing adjustment that were initially suggested by TPO but were subsequently enhanced by Ld. CIT(A). We find that the enhancement to transfer pricing adjustments directed by Ld. CIT(A), was challenged by the assessee before the Tribunal. The co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal vide order dated 01.08.2019 had directed the inclusion/exclusion of certain comparables. We further find that the assessee has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
