9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was confirmed by the ld. DRP but was restricted to LIBOR + 200 bps by the Coordinate Bench on appeal by the assessee. Facts of the case are undisputed. We note that although AO has levied penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, fact of the matter is that assessee had disclosed necessary facts required for computation of total income in the return of income filed for the year. It is also a fact on record that appeal by the assessee before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay on the quantum assessment has been admitted on substantial question of law and is pending for disposal. Admission of appeal by the Hon'ble High Court indicates that the question is an arguable point in law on which two views are possible. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Year 2013-14. iii) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067868009(1), dated 22.08.2024, passed against the penalty order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2011-12. iv) ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067867894(1), dated 22.08.2024, passed against the penalty order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 15.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 7 days noted by Registry in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay is placed on record. We have considered the petition for condonation of the said delay. Upon perusal of the same and hearing both sides, we dee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this stated amount towards charging of interest at SBI PLR @ 300 bps on the advances given and LIBOR + 200 bps on the share application money given. Matter was carried to DRP - 1, Mumbai and addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer were confirmed by DRP vide its order dated 22.12.2017. In its order, DRP gave a direction that transfer pricing adjustment on share application money should also be done at SBI PLR @ 300 bps. 4.2. Assessee contested the transfer pricing adjustment in appeal before the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai whereby transfer pricing adjustment was restricted on both, advances and share application money given at LIBOR + 200 bps as against SBI PLR rate. Relevant portion of the order of Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 5991 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not charged on loan provided to AE as the sums were received from the holding company on which, no interest has been paid. This has rightly been rejected by the authorities below. The authorities below have also rejected the assessee's contention that there is no transfer of profits from the assessee to the AEs that the AE is into losses and hence, there is no shifting of profits. That assessee had provided loans to business expediency, that loan provided was converted into share capital in the subsequent year that loan profit to written off in the subsequent years. In this regard, we note that interest free loans given to the AE have been categorically held to be international transaction calling for the adjustment of ALP in catena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect to the above referred order of coordinate bench, transfer pricing adjustment was recomputed at ₹ 8,76,33,900/-. Thereafter, impugned penalty order was passed on 15.03.2022 levying penalty of ₹ 2,97,86,762/- under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) who deleted the penalty so levied. Against this, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.4. According to the assessee, issue of notional interest on interest free loans given to associated enterprise is highly debatable issue, more particularly when appeal by the assessee against the aforesaid order of Coordinate Bench has been admitted by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay on substantial questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantum assessment has been admitted on substantial question of law and is pending for disposal. Admission of appeal by the Hon'ble High Court indicates that the question is an arguable point in law on which two views are possible. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is not a case for penalty under section 271(1)(c). When the issue is debatable and two views are possible, then on such issue, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied by charging the assessee with the charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5.2. For giving the above finding, we draw force from the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Nayan Builders & Developers 368 ITR 722 (Bom) who held that where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
